Opinion ID: 169961
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Wrong Guideline

Text: Counsel argues that in determining which guideline to use in calculating defendant’s offense level, the district court, relying on the PSR, used U.S.S.G. § 2A3.1 and should have used § 2G1.3, which concerns “Promoting a Commercial Sex Act or Prohibited Sexual Conduct.” We disagree. § 2G1.3 is not in the U.S.S.G. effective November 5, 2003, which governs the present case. It does appear as § 2G1.3 in the U.S.S.G. effective November 1, 2004. Further, Appendix A of the U.S.S.G. (effective November 5, 2003) specifies that either §§ 2A3.1, 2A3.2 or 2A3.3 is to be used for a violation of 18 U.S.C. §2423(b), the charge to which the defendant pled guilty. Such being the case, because the victims in the present case were only two years old, the PSR and the district court properly used § 2A3.1 as the starting point in their determination of defendant’s offense level. By supplemental brief, counsel suggests that Cunningham v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 856 (2007), filed by the Supreme Court on January 22, 2007, dictates a reversal in the present case. We agree with the United States Attorney that Cunningham does not change the teaching of Booker. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Judgment Affirmed. Entered for the Court Robert H. McWilliams