Opinion ID: 68547
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: PSI’s Advisory Guidelines Calculation

Text: The PSI applied the multiple count aggregation rules under U.S.S.G. 2 Melchor was convicted, and his appeal is in the briefing stage. 5 § 3D1.2 to determine Monsalve’s offense level.3 The PSI grouped Objects 2 and 3 of Count 1 and Counts 6 to 11 by victim for each of the 16 victims, providing 16 count groups, and calculated the offense levels for these 16 count groups under § 2G1.1.4 See U.S.S.G. §§ 2G1.1(d)(1), 3D1.2(b). The PSI also identified a 17th count group, which addressed the conduct reflected in Object 4 of the conspiracy, as well as Count 5, and calculated the offense level for this 17th count group under § 2L1.1. Monsalve’s challenges on appeal focus on count groups 1 and 2, which addressed the conduct related to Victims 1 and 2. In calculating the offense level for count groups 1 and 2, the PSI noted that § 2G1.1 set Monsalve’s base offense level at 14. The PSI applied several enhancements under § 2G1.1, including a four-level enhancement under § 2G1.1(b)(1) because Monsalve coerced Victims 1 and 2 into engaging in prostitution.5 The PSI initially determined that the adjusted offense level for count groups 1 and 2 of the 17 count groups was 26. The § 2G1.1 enhancements and this initial adjusted offense level of 26 became irrelevant, however, when the PSI next reported that Monsalve caused 3 The PSI used the 2007 Sentencing Guidelines. 4 According to the PSI, the government identified at least 16 alien women with whom defendant Monsalve was involved for the purpose of prostitution. 5 “Coercion” is defined in Application Note 2 of § 2G1.1 as conduct that “negates the voluntariness of the victim.” 6 Victims 1 and 2 to engage in a sexual act by placing them in fear.6 Based on this finding, the PSI stated that the cross-reference in § 2G1.1(c)(1) applied and required that § 2A3.1 be used to calculate Monsalve’s base offense level.7 Under § 2A3.1, Monsalve’s base offense level for count groups 1 and 2 was 30. The PSI then recommended several enhancements, including a two-level, vulnerable-victim enhancement under § 3A1.1(b). Monsalve’s final adjusted offense level for each of count groups 1 and 2 was 38. Ultimately, after a two-level increase under § 3D1.4, Monsalve’s final, combined adjusted offense level was 40.8 6 Section 2G1.1, the guideline for the crime of promoting prostitution, includes a crossreference providing that, “[i]f the offense involved conduct described in 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) or (b) or 18 U.S.C. § 2242, apply § 2A3.1 (Criminal Sexual Abuse; Attempt to Commit Criminal Sexual Abuse).” U.S.S.G. § 2G1.1(c)(1) (2007). For purposes of this cross-reference, conduct described in 18 U.S.C. § 2242 includes an attempt to “engag[e] in, or caus[e] another person to engage in, a sexual act with another person by threatening or placing the victim in fear (other than by threatening or placing the victim in fear that any person will be subject to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping).” Id. § 2G1.1 cmt. n.4(B)(i). 7 In United States v. Pipkins, 378 F.3d 1281, 1300-01 (11th Cir. 2004), vacated, 544 U.S. 902, 125 S. Ct. 1617 (2005), opinion reinstated by, 412 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2005), this Court distinguished the conduct that triggers the coercion enhancement under § 2G1.1(b)(1) from the conduct that triggers the cross-reference in § 2G1.1(c)(1), as follows: “a pimp’s threatening a prostitute to coerce her to stay in his custody would . . . satisfy the enhancement (which requires prostitution plus coercion) but not the cross-reference (which requires coercion to perform a sex act).” We also stated in Pipkins that, because the cross-reference would not always subsume the enhancement, “some overlap in the enhancement and the cross-reference does not offend the Sentencing Guidelines or any other law.” Id. at 1301. The mandatory language in the crossreference demanded that, “when there is this overlap, the judge must apply the cross-reference.” Id. 8 Section 3D1.4 provides that: The combined offense level is determined by taking the offense level applicable to the Group with the highest offense level and increasing that offense level by the amount indicated in the following table: 7 The PSI recommended a denial of any adjustment for acceptance of responsibility because “[t]he defendant has failed to accept personal responsibility for his involvement in the offense as required by § 3E1.1.”