Opinion ID: 65507
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Double Counting for Use of Computer

Text: Carter argues that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence pursuant to both § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) and § 2G2.2(b)(6) because using both enhancements punished him twice for the same conduct, for using a computer in commission of the crime. We disagree. “Impermissible double counting occurs only when one part of the Guidelines is applied to increase a defendant’s punishment on account of a kind of harm that has already been fully accounted for by application of another part of the Guidelines.” United States v. Matos-Rodriguez, 188 F.3d 1300, 1309 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal citation omitted). Double counting is permitted, however, “if the Sentencing Commission intended that result and each guideline section in question concerns conceptually separate notions relating to sentencing.” United States v. Stevenson, 68 F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Dudley, 463 F.3d 1221, 1227 (11th Cir. 2006) (finding no impermissible double counting where the Guidelines sections at issue addressed separate harms). “This court presumes the Sentencing Commission intended to apply separate guideline sections cumulatively, unless specifically directed otherwise.” Matos-Rodriguez, 188 F.3d 5 at 1310. Nothing in the Guidelines indicates that the Sentencing Commission intended for §§ 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) and (b)(6) to not be applied together. Furthermore, Carter has made no argument to rebut the presumption that the Commission intended these sections to be cumulative. These sections also address separate harms. Section 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) provides for an enhancement for distribution of material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor. This section addresses the harms attendant to the act of distributing and sharing child pornography with other individuals; this section does not address the medium used for the distribution. Section 2G2.2(b)(6), on the other hand, provides for an enhancement “if the offense involved the use of a computer or an interactive computer service for the possession, transmission, receipt or distribution of the material.” This section focuses on the harms associated with the use of a computer in all aspects of child pornography crimes—the possession, transmission, receipt, and distribution—all of which are undoubtedly made easier to do, and easier to do in mass quantities, with a computer. The fact that Carter’s method of distribution involved a computer does not create impermissible double counting with the application of enhancements for both distributing child pornography to others and for using a computer in the commission of his production, possession, and distribution of that 6 material. Thus the district court did not engage in impermissible double counting by applying sentencing enhancements under both §§ 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) and (b)(6).