Opinion ID: 3061719
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sentencing Enhancement for Age of Victim

Text: Sentencing Guidelines § 2G2.1(b)(1)(B) provides for a two-level enhancement 18 for defendants convicted of sexually exploiting a minor by production of sexually explicit visual or printed material when “the offense involved a minor who had . . . attained the age of twelve years but not attained the age of sixteen years.” U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(1). The guidelines define a defendant’s “offense” as the “offense of conviction and all relevant conduct under § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) unless a different meaning is specified or is otherwise clear from the context.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, cmt. n. 1(H). “Relevant conduct” includes “(A) all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused by the defendant; and...(B) in the case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity . . . all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity, that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1). We interpret relevant conduct broadly. United States v. Behr, 93 F.3d 765, 765 (11th Cir. 1996). Holt contends that the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G § 2G2.1(b)(1)(B) for MV’s age is unwarranted, because although the PSI found the sexual abuse occurred when MV was fourteen years old, MV was sixteen and seventeen years old during the time period for the relevant offense of conviction for production of child 19 pornography. Holt further asserts that the court interpreted the meaning of the word “offense” too broadly within § 2G2.1(b)(1)(B) and in so doing, disregarded the literal meaning of the indictment and the guideline. The district court’s factual finding that Holt’s sexual abuse of MV began when she was fourteen years old is relevant conduct and is not clearly erroneous. As MV testified, she and Holt were engaged in a continuous sexual relationship while she was between the ages of fourteen and seventeen. The PSI noted that some of the images of MV were taken when she was fifteen years old. Given this, and interpreting the guidelines broadly, it is entirely plausible that Holt’s inappropriate sexual relationship with MV groomed her to participate in Holt’s production of pornographic images. See Behr, 93 F.3d at 765. The district court did not clearly err when it found that Holt’s repeated sexual abuse of the victim, commencing when she was fourteen years old, was relevant conduct. Therefore, we affirm the § 2G2.1(b)(1)(B) enhancement.