Opinion ID: 795016
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Grouping of the Production Counts

Text: 11 Kiel argues that the district court erred in refusing to group the five Production Counts together, asserting that Counts II, IV, and V involved minor child A.K. and should be grouped together, while Count IV involved minor child P.C. and should constitute a separate group under § 2G2.1(c)(1). Thus, Kiel asserts that the district court should have created two groups, one for each identified victim. Based on this grouping, Kiel argues the district court should have applied the multiple-count adjustment under § 3D1.4, resulting in a total offense level of 35 once two levels were added to the adjusted offense level of 33. We review de novo a district court's interpretation and application of the Guidelines. United States v. Mathijssen, 406 F.3d 496 (8th Cir.2005). 12 Section 2G2.1(d) of the Guidelines — Sexual Exploitation of a Minor by Production of Sexually Explicit Visual or Printed Material—provides that [i]f the offense involved the exploitation of more than one minor, Chapter Three, Part D (Multiple Counts) shall be applied as if the exploitation of each minor had been contained in a separate count of conviction. Application Note 5 to § 2G2.1 then explains: 13 For the purposes of Chapter Three, Part D (Multiple Counts), each minor exploited is to be treated as a separate minor. Consequently, multiple counts involving the exploitation of different minors are not to be grouped together under § 3D1.2 (Groups of Closely Related Counts). Subsection (d)(1) directs that if the relevant conduct of an offense of conviction includes more than one minor being exploited, whether specifically cited in the count of conviction or not, such minor shall be treated as if contained in a separate count of conviction. 14 Section 3D1.2 of the Guidelines set[s] forth the circumstances in which counts are to be grouped together into a single Group. Application Note 1 to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2. Specifically excluded from the operation of this section is Sexual Exploitation of a Minor by Production of Sexually Explicit Visual or Printed Material under § 2G2.1. Furthermore, § 3D1.2 does not authorize the grouping of offenses that cannot be considered to represent essentially one composite harm (e.g., robbery of the same victim on different occasions involves multiple, separate instances of fear and risk of harm, not one composite harm). Application Note 4 to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2. 15 Therefore, considering the commentary to §§ 2G2.1 and 3D1.2, we hold that the district court properly refused to group the Production Counts. Each time that Kiel molested a child, he inflicted a separate and distinct harm upon that child; therefore, his actions cannot be considered substantially the same harm for grouping purposes under § 3D1.2.