Court Opinion

ID: 2963554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:11:52.356288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:41.498624
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            United States Court of Appeals
                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

        No. 94-2154

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 MICHAEL T. CHAPMAN,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________
                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Peter B. Krupp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, for appellant.
            ______________
            Jeanne M. Kempthorne, Assistant United States Attorney, with  whom
            ____________________
        Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee.
        _______________

                                 ____________________

                                    July 25, 1995
                                 ____________________

                      STAHL, Circuit Judge.  Appellant Michael T. Chapman
                      STAHL, Circuit Judge.
                             _____________

            pled guilty to one count of transporting child pornography in

            interstate commerce  in violation  of 18 U.S.C.    2252(a)(1)

            and  was  sentenced  to  thirty-three  months  incarceration.

            Chapman  appeals  his  sentence,  challenging   the  district

            court's  application of  a five-level  "pattern of  activity"

            enhancement  under U.S.S.G.    2G2.2(b)(4).1   We  vacate the

            sentence  imposed  by  the  district  court  and  remand  for

            resentencing.

                                          I.
                                          I.
                                          __

                      From November  1993 until  at  least January  1994,

            Chapman,  of Southbridge,  Massachusetts,  subscribed to  the

            America On-Line  (AOL) computer information network.   During

            that time,  Chapman communicated  via computer  and telephone

            with  an AOL  subscriber in  Michigan (a  cooperating witness

            referred  to  by the  government  as  "Dan") about  Chapman's

            sexual interest in children.   Chapman told Dan about  having

            had sexual relations with  children as young as seven  years,

            and discussed with Dan  the possibility of abducting  a young

            girl,  bringing her to Michigan where both men would have sex

            with her, and then  killing her.  Chapman also  told Dan that

            he  possessed a "snuff film" depicting the rape and murder of

            a ten-year-old girl, as well as other child pornography.

                                
            ____________________

            1.  All  references  to  the  Sentencing  Guidelines,  unless
            otherwise noted, are to the 1993 Guidelines Manual.

                                         -2-
                                          2

                      On  December  2,  1993,  Chapman   sent  Dan  three

            photographs via  the computer network, each  with a different

            file  designation.   Two  of the  pictures  depicted nude  or

            partially nude  girls, while the third depicted  a young girl

            engaged in sex with a man.  A nurse employed by  the FBI told

            investigators  that in her opinion, the  girl depicted in the

            third  photograph was less than  ten years old.   On December

            29, 1993, Chapman told Dan that he was going to scan and send

            to Dan a photograph of Chapman having anal intercourse with a

            twelve-year-old  girl.   Chapman  then sent  to Dan  over the

            computer network  a photograph  depicting a man2  having anal

            intercourse with a young female who an FBI nurse later stated

            appeared to be under eighteen years old.

                      A  search of  Chapman's residence  and computer  on

            February 16, 1994, pursuant to a warrant obtained by the FBI,

            turned  up  no  "snuff  films," other  child  pornography  or

            scanning  equipment.   Chapman  told investigators  that  his

            statements   to  Dan  about  sexually  abusing  children  and

            possessing  a  snuff  film  were  not true  but  were  simply

            fantasy.   Investigators were  unable to verify  that Chapman

            had actually engaged in the sexual acts with children that he

            had described to Dan.  Chapman admitted, however, that he had

            exposed  himself   to  minors  and   that  he  had   shown  a

                                
            ____________________

            2.  The photograph showed  the man's lower torso but  not his
            face.

                                         -3-
                                          3

            pornographic film  to children, although the  record does not

            make clear when these events occurred.

                      On  March 22,  1994,  Chapman was  indicted in  the

            Eastern District  of Michigan  on four counts,  each charging

            interstate  computer  transmission  of  child  pornography in

            violation  of  18 U.S.C.    2252(a)(1).    On June  17, 1994,

            Chapman pleaded  guilty in  the District of  Massachusetts to

            Count One of the indictment,  which involved the December  2,

            1993, transmission of the photograph depicting a ten-year-old

            girl in a sexually explicit act.

                      Following  Chapman's  plea,   the  U.S.   Probation

            Department prepared Chapman's presentence report (the "PSR").

            In  addition  to the  information  set forth  above,  the PSR

            stated that  Chapman told investigators that  he had obtained

            about fifty pornographic  images over  the computer  network,

            and  had  engaged  in  sexually  graphic correspondence  with

            hundreds of  computer network subscribers  over the preceding

            two months.  Chapman objected to these statements in the PSR,

            maintaining that he had simply told investigators that he had

            access to fifty pornographic images over the computer network
            ______

            and  that he  had seen  hundreds of names  listed on  AOL and

            other  bulletin  boards  of  people  interested  in  sexually

            graphic correspondence.  Chapman  also claimed in response to

            the  PSR that he had never  "downloaded" the photographs sent

            to Dan,  that in fact he  had never viewed them  himself, and

                                         -4-
                                          4

            that the December 29  photograph  depicted neither him  nor a

            minor.

                      The  PSR  also  indicated  that  Chapman  had prior

            convictions  in  Massachusetts  for  rape and  for  lewd  and

            lascivious   behavior  arising  from   acts  involving  young

            children.   In  addition,  in 1981,  Chapman had  admitted to

            facts warranting a finding  of guilt on a charge  of indecent

            exposure;  that  charge was  continued  with  supervision and

            eventually dismissed.  Furthermore, the PSR stated that there

            was  credible  evidence that  Chapman  had made  a  series of

            obscene phone  calls in 1988 to  the twelve-year-old daughter

            of one of his friends; Chapman disputed this allegation.

                      At  Chapman's sentencing  hearing on  September 27,

            1994,  the only legal issue in dispute was the application of

            U.S.S.G.     2G2.2(b)(4),   which,  under  the  category   of

            "Specific   Offense  Characteristics,"   states:     "If  the

            defendant  engaged in  a  pattern of  activity involving  the

            sexual  abuse  or  exploitation of  a  minor,  increase  by 5

            levels."  The PSR recommended the application of the pattern-

            of-activity enhancement to Chapman because he had transmitted

            three sexually  explicit photographs of minors  on December 2

            and a fourth  on December 29.  The district  court agreed and

            applied the enhancement to Chapman, stating that it based its

            decision on "[t]he entire record, the prior record, the other

            conduct, the  1988 incident,  the entire  record that I  have

                                         -5-
                                          5

            before me, with  the exception  of [the  December 29  photo],

            which I accept  [defense counsel's] argument on."   The court

            imposed a sentence of  thirty-three months, the minimum under

            the applicable guideline range.3  This appeal followed.

                                         II.
                                         II.
                                         ___

                      Chapman  argues that  the district  court erred  in

            applying   2G2.2(b)(4)  to him because the guideline does not

            permit  consideration  of past  sexual abuse  or exploitation

            that is unrelated to  the offense of conviction, and  because

            the  transmission of  child  pornography by  computer is  not

            "sexual  abuse or  exploitation"  within the  meaning of  the

            guideline.   Thus,  Chapman challenges  the  district court's

            interpretation  of the  meaning and  scope of  the guideline,

            which we  review de novo.   United States v. Powell,  50 F.3d
                             _______    _____________    ______

            94, 102 (1st Cir.  1995); United States v. Thompson,  32 F.3d
                                      _____________    ________

            1, 4 (1st Cir. 1994).

                      We first consider whether the transmission of child

            pornography by computer may constitute a "pattern of activity

            involving the sexual abuse or exploitation  of a minor" under

                                
            ____________________

            3.  The district  court arrived at Chapman's  sentence in the
            following  manner:   The  Base  Offense  Level for  Chapman's
            offense was 15.   He  received a two-level  increase under   
            2G2.2(b)(1) because one of the photographs he sent involved a
            prepubescent  minor,  and  a  five-level   increase  under   
            2G2.2(b)(4).     The  court   subtracted  three  levels   for
            acceptance of responsibility pursuant to   3E1.1(b), bringing
            Chapman's adjusted  offense level to 19.   Chapman's criminal
            history  placed him  in  category II,  making his  applicable
            guideline sentencing range thirty-three to forty-one months.

                                         -6-
                                          6

              2G2.2(b)(4).  The  commentary to   2G2.2 explains  that the

            quoted  phrase "means any combination of two or more separate

            instances of the sexual abuse or the sexual exploitation of a

            minor,  whether  involving the  same  or different  victims."

            U.S.S.G.   2G2.2, comment. (n.4).  "Sexual abuse" and "sexual

            exploitation,"  however,  are  not   defined  in  either  the

            relevant   sentencing   guidelines  or   their  corresponding

            statutory  provisions.   The government  does not  argue that

            trafficking in child pornography, by itself, is sexual abuse;

            the question for us to decide is whether it may be considered

            sexual exploitation of a minor.

                      The most  nearly relevant dictionary  definition of

            "exploitation"  is  "an unjust  or  improper  use of  another

            person for one's  own profit or advantage."   Webster's Third
                                                          _______________

            New  International  Dictionary (1986).    In  a broad  sense,
            ______________________________

            anyone  who   chooses  to  look  at   child  pornography  has

            "improperly  used" the  child depicted  in the  materials and

            thus  has exploited  that  child  --  a  trafficker  in  such

            materials,  whether recipient or sender, all the more so.  We

            do not  think that  Congress,4 or the  Sentencing Commission,

                                
            ____________________

            4.  The  Sentencing Commission  added  subsection (b)(4)  and
            application  note  4  to     2G2.2  in  1991  pursuant  to  a
            congressional mandate.  See  U.S.S.G. App. C., Amendment 435;
                                    ___
            Treasury,    Postal    Service    and   General    Government
            Appropriations Act of 1992, Pub. L.  No. 102-141,   632.  The
            legislative  history  sheds little,  if  any,  light on  what
            Congress  intended  the  pattern-of-activity  enhancement  to
            mean.  Senators Helms and Thurmond, the amendment's sponsors,
            focused on  the  need  for higher  base  offense  levels  for

                                         -7-
                                          7

            intended  for the  word  "exploitation" in    2G2.2(b)(4)  to

            carry   this  all-encompassing  meaning.     We   reach  this

            conclusion based on the interaction of subsection (b)(4) with

            other   guidelines  provisions,   and   on   the   Sentencing

            Commission's use of "exploitation" in other contexts.

                      The first clue to the meaning of the phrase "sexual

            exploitation"  is provided  by  the disparate  titles of  the

            guidelines punishing violations of 18 U.S.C.    2251-52.  See
                                                                      ___

            Berniger v.  Meadow Green-Wildcat Corp.,  945 F.2d 4,  9 (1st
            ________     __________________________

            Cir. 1991) (titles may aid in construing any ambiguities in a

            statute).   The  title of  U.S.S.G.    2G2.1,  applicable  to

            crimes related to the production of child pornography, is:
                                  __________

                      Sexually Exploiting a Minor by Production
                      ___________________________
                      of  Sexually  Explicit Visual  or Printed
                      Material:  Custodian Permitting  Minor to
                      Engage  in   Sexually  Explicit  Conduct:
                      Advertisement  for  Minors  to Engage  in
                      Production

            (emphasis added).  The title of   2G2.2 is:

                      Trafficking  in  Material  Involving  the
                                       ________________________
                      Sexual    Exploitation   of    a   Minor;
                      ______________________
                      Receiving,  Transporting,   Shipping,  or

                                
            ____________________

            purveyors  and possessors  of  child  pornography  (the  base
            offense  levels  for  possessors  and  recipients   of  child
            pornography  were, respectively, 10 and  13 at the time), and
            on  the link between child pornography and sexual abuse.  See
                                                                      ___
            137  Cong.   Rec.  S10322-33   (daily  ed.  July   18,  1991)
            (statements  of Senators  Helms and  Thurmond).   In relevant
            part,  section   632  of  the  Act   ordered  the  Sentencing
            Commission  to amend   2G2.2 "to provide a base offense level
            of  not  less than  15  and to  provide  at least  a  5 level
            increase  for offenders  who  have engaged  in  a pattern  of
            activity  involving the  sexual  abuse or  exploitation of  a
            minor."

                                         -8-
                                          8

                      Advertising Material Involving the Sexual
                      Exploitation   of  a   Minor;  Possessing
                      Material     Involving     the     Sexual
                      Exploitation  of a  Minor with  Intent to
                      Traffic.

            (emphasis  added).   The title of    2G2.1  clearly indicates

            that the acts to which  that guideline applies are themselves
                                                           ______________

            sexual exploitation of a minor; the title of   2G2.2 suggests

            that while  the material "involves" sexual  exploitation of a
                            ________

            minor, trafficking in such material does not.   If subsection

            (b)(4)  of    2G2.2  were meant  to  include the  trafficking

            offenses punishable  by that  very same guideline,  one would

            expect that the Sentencing Commission -- either in subsection

            (b)(4) itself or  in application  note 4 --  would have  used

            language that  more obviously  included those offenses.   For

            example, application  note 4  could have defined  "pattern of

            activity"  as "any combination of two  or more acts involving

            the  sexual abuse or sexual  exploitation of a  minor, or the
                                                                   ______

            trafficking  in, or  transportation  or receipt  of, material
            _____________________________________________________________

            involving such  exploitation."   Cf.  U.S.S.G.    2G2.4(b)(2)
            ____________________________     ___

            (increasing   offense  level   of  defendants   convicted  of

            possession  of child  pornography  "if  the offense  involved

            possessing ten or more  books, magazines, periodicals, films,

            video tapes,  or other  items, containing a  visual depiction

            involving the sexual exploitation of  a minor").  By limiting

            "pattern of  activity" to "instances  of the sexual  abuse or

            the  sexual exploitation  of a  minor," in  the context  of a

                                         -9-
                                          9

            guideline that  by its  own terms differentiates  itself from
                            _________________

            another guideline  that does  explicitly apply to  the sexual
                                    ____

            exploitation  of   minors,  the  Sentencing   Commission  has

            provided  at least  a strong  initial clue  that it  does not

            understand "exploitation" to include trafficking offenses.

                       The relevant  statutory provisions make  a similar

            distinction.  The title of 18 U.S.C.   2251, which applies to

            persons directly involved in the  production or advertisement

            of  child pornography, is  "Sexual exploitation of children,"

            while 18 U.S.C.   2252 is titled "Certain activities relating

            to material  involving the  sexual  exploitation of  minors."

            Thus,  Congress  apparently  intended to  draw  a distinction

            between those directly engaged  in sexually exploiting minors

            and those who were engaged  in "certain activities related to

            material involving" such exploitation.

                      The government argues  that if we are going to look

            to titles in interpreting the guideline, then  we should look

            to the title of Chapter 110 of Title 18 of the  U.S. Code, in

            which  all of  the  relevant child  pornography statutes  are

            grouped -- "Sexual Exploitation  and Other Abuse of Children"

            -- or  to the heading  of Part 2G2  of the Guidelines,  under

            which  both     2G2.1 and     2G2.2  are  grouped --  "Sexual

            Exploitation  of  a  Minor."     These  broad  headings,  the

            government   argues,   suggest    that   the   term   "sexual

            exploitation"   has  a  broader  meaning  than  simply  those

                                         -10-
                                          10

            activities described in 18 U.S.C.   2251 or U.S.S.G.   2G2.1.

            We  agree that  there are  some  activities not  described in

            those provisions  that may be  considered sexual exploitation

            for purposes of   2G2.2(b)(4); we do not agree, however, that
                                                 ___

            any  activity   subsumed   within  Chapter   110,   including
            ___

            trafficking, necessarily constitutes sexual exploitation of a

            minor.   For example, the statute  prescribing record-keeping

            requirements for the producers of sexually explicit material,

            18 U.S.C.   2257, is intended to protect  minors but does not
                                             _______

            require any involvement with  minors for its violation.   Yet

            it  is placed  within  Chapter  110  of  Title  18,  and  its

            corresponding guideline,   2G2.5, is placed under the broader

            heading  of  "Sexual  Exploitation  of  a  Minor."    By  the

            government's reasoning, violations of   2257 would constitute

            "sexual  exploitation   of  a   minor"  for  purposes   of   

            2G2.2(b)(4) even  though the  violator of that  statute might

            never  have had  any involvement  with children,  directly or

            indirectly.

                      To be sure,  the use  of titles has  its limits  in

            statutory interpretation,5 and we  do not rely exclusively on

                                
            ____________________

            5.  We recognize, for instance, that  neither the title of 18
            U.S.C.    12251A ("Selling  or buying  of children")  nor the
            title of  Guidelines   2G2.3 ("Selling or  Buying of Children
            for Use  in the Production of  Pornography") expressly states
            that the  acts addressed  by those provisions  constitute the
            sexual  exploitation of a  minor.  We would  be loath to say,
            however, that  the buying or  selling of children  for sexual
            purposes -- whether or not for use in the production of child
            pornography --   could not be considered part of a pattern of

                                         -11-
                                          11

            titles to interpret  the provision  at issue  here.   Indeed,

            were there no other indicators of the Commission's intent, we

            might  be inclined to agree  with the government.   But there

            are other indicators, and we find them to be dispositive.

                      Direct  evidence  that  the  Sentencing  Commission

            differentiates  between sexual  exploitation of  a minor  and

            trafficking  in  materials  depicting  such  exploitation  is

            provided by Amendment 372 to the Guidelines.   That amendment

            inserted  a  new  guideline,    2G2.4,  to  address  offenses

            involving the receipt or  possession of child pornography, as

            distinguished  from  the trafficking  offenses  covered by   

            2G2.2.6   The  new guideline  contained, and  still contains,

            cross references to both   2G2.1 and   2G2.2.  See U.S.S.G.  
                                                           ___

            2G2.4(c)(1)-(2).  The Commission explained:

                      Offenses     involving     receipt     or
                      transportation of [child pornography] for
                      the purpose of trafficking are referenced
                      to  2G2.2 on the  basis of the underlying
                      conduct (subsection  (c)(2)).  Similarly,
                      offenses in which the  underlying conduct
                      _________________________________________
                      is more appropriately addressed as sexual
                      _________________________________________
                      exploitation of a minor are referenced to
                      _________________________________________
                      that guideline (subsection (c)(1)).
                      ______________

            U.S.S.G.  App. C.,  Amendment  372 (emphasis  added).   "That

            guideline" referred to in  the quoted passage's last sentence

            is    2G2.1;  the Commission  could not  have been  much more

                                
            ____________________

            activity of sexual exploitation.

            6.  Receipt  offenses are now covered by   2G2.2, and   2G2.4
            applies only to possession offenses.

                                         -12-
                                          12

            clear  in  distinguishing "trafficking"  offenses  from those

            "more appropriately  addressed  as sexual  exploitation of  a

            minor."    Yet, the  government  argues  that we  should  now

            ascribe to the Commission an intention to include trafficking
                                                      _______

            offenses  within  the  meaning  of  sexual  exploitation  for

            purposes  of    2G2.2(b)(4), even  though the  Commission has

            clearly differentiated the  two on a  previous occasion.   We
                    ______________

            are  unable to find any clear evidence that the Commission in

            drafting subsection  (b)(4)  intended to  abandon  its  prior

            differentiation, and we therefore will not  ascribe to it any

            such motive.

                      Application note 5 to   2G2.2 delivers the defining

            answer to the government's argument.  It states:

                      If  the  defendant sexually  exploited or
                      abused  a minor  at any time,  whether or
                      not such sexual abuse occurred during the
                      course   of   the   offense,  an   upward
                      departure   may   be   warranted.      In
                      determining   the   extent   of  such   a
                      departure,  the  court  should take  into
                      consideration the offense levels provided
                      in      2A3.1,   2A3.2,  and  2A3.4  most
                      commensurate    with   the    defendant's
                      conduct, as well as whether the defendant
                      has   received   an   enhancement   under
                      subsection  (b)(4)  on  account  of  such
                      conduct.

            If  we  were  to  adopt the  government's  argument  that the

            computer   transmission  of   child  pornography   is  sexual

            exploitation, then the first sentence of this note would mean

            that  a court may depart upward from the guideline sentencing

            range  for the very same  act of "exploitation"  -- i.e., the
                       ___________________________________

                                         -13-
                                          13

            transmission of a photograph -- that  led to the conviction.7

            The  Commission might  as well  draft a  sentencing guideline

            applicable  to   bank  robberies,   and  then  state   in  an

            application  note that "if the defendant robbed a bank at any

            time, an upward departure may be warranted."  This is not how

            the guidelines are meant to operate; departures are permitted

            only  if "an  aggravating or  mitigating circumstance  exists

            that  was  not adequately  taken  into  consideration by  the

            Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines  and that

            should result  in a sentence different  from that described."

            18 U.S.C.   3553(b).   Yet the application note  says nothing

            about an aggravating circumstance;  if trafficking is  sexual

            exploitation, then trafficking alone, without any aggravating
                                                  _______

            circumstances, permits a judge to  depart upward.  This makes

            no  sense:   An  offense  specifically  punishable under  the

            guideline cannot at  the same time be  "an aggravating .  . .

                                
            ____________________

            7.  The Commission  inserted the words "exploited  or" in the
            first sentence of  application note  5 in 1991,  at the  same
            time  it  added  subsection (b)(4)  to  the  guideline.   See
                                                                      ___
            U.S.S.G. App.  C., Amendment  435 (effective Nov.  27, 1991).
            It did not amend the second clause of that sentence ("whether
                   ___
            or not  such sexual abuse . . . "),  nor did it insert in the
                    _________________
            following sentence a reference to the guideline applicable to
            sexual  exploitation.   One might  argue that  the Commission
            omitted  any  such  reference  intentionally,  intending  for
            sexual exploitation to include  more crimes than those listed
                                            ____
            in    2G2.1.  We do not believe, however, that the Commission
            intended  to open  the  door  for  departures  based  on  any
                                                                      ___
            activity   that   might   conceivably   be   labeled   sexual
            exploitation; it had  something more specific  in mind.   Our
            best estimate  of what "something more  specific" encompasses
            is guided by the Commission's past usage of the term.

                                         -14-
                                          14

            circumstance .  . . not adequately  taken into consideration"

            by  the  Commission; indeed,  if  the  offense  may also,  by

            itself,  warrant  an  upward  departure,  then  the guideline

            serves  no useful  purpose.    Thus,  we must  conclude  that

            "sexually  exploited," as  used in  application note  5 of   

            2G2.2  to warrant  an upward  departure, must  mean something
                                                     ____

            different than the substantive offenses punishable under that

            guideline.

                      The  government argues  that the  interpretation of

            subsection (b)(4)  that we adopt will  render the pattern-of-

            activity enhancement virtually useless, and that therefore we

            should  breathe  life into  it  by  assigning it  some  other

            meaning.  For example, a defendant convicted of a trafficking

            offense, but whose offense  involved a pattern of production-

            related  activity  sufficient  under  our  interpretation  to

            warrant  the enhancement under  subsection (b)(4),  would, in

            accordance  with the  cross  reference of    2G2.2(c)(1),  be

            sentenced  under  the   guideline  applicable  to  production

            offenses,     2G2.1,  if  his resulting  offense  level  were

            greater than that  under    2G2.2.  Section  2G2.1 carries  a

            base offense level of 25, compared to a base offense level of

            just 15 under    2G2.2; the only way a  trafficker could ever

            receive a higher  offense level  under   2G2.2  than under   

            2G2.1 would  be if  his offense involved  distribution (five-

            level  increase;    2G2.2(b)(2))  and  the material  involved
                                              ___

                                         -15-
                                          15

            portrayed   sadistic   or  masochistic   conduct  (four-level

            increase;    2G2.2(b)(3)),  and he  received  the  five-level

            pattern-of-activity enhancement (bringing  his total  offense

            level  to 29).  It  is unlikely, the  government argues, that

            Congress intended the pattern-of-activity enhancement to have

            such limited  applicability, and therefore we  should broaden

            its  applicability by  construing  "sexual  exploitation"  to

            include trafficking in child pornography.

                      But  there may well  be activities  that constitute

            sexual  exploitation,  as  used  in  subsection  (b)(4), that

            neither  implicate the cross reference to   2G2.1 nor clearly

            rise  to the  level  of sexual  abuse.8   And, in  any event,

            while the  limited applicability of subsection  (b)(4) may be

            troubling, it would be more troubling to interpret the phrase

                                
            ____________________

            8.  To offer  but a single  example, imagine  a recipient  or
            sender of  child  pornography  who,  in  the  course  of  his
            activities, associates with teenagers who engage in "sexually
            explicit  conduct"  as  defined  at 18  U.S.C.     2256(2)(E)
            ("lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic  area of any
            person"), but who neither has physical contact with them  nor
            photographs  them.   This  offender should  not be  sentenced
            under    2G2.1; nevertheless,  he has clearly  made "improper
            use"  of the minors for his own sexual gratification:  he has
            exploited them.
                      The  enhancement also has  obvious applicability in
            cases  involving sexual  abuse.   Section  2G2.2 contains  no
            cross-reference  for a  defendant  whose trafficking  offense
            also involved sexual abuse.  While application note 5 permits
            a sentencing  judge to  depart upward in  such circumstances,
            and directs his or her attention to the guidelines applicable
            to sexual abuse in determining  the appropriate extent of any
            departure,  subsection  (b)(4)  substantially  increases  the
            sentence of a defendant  who has engaged in two  instances of
            sexual abuse  without requiring an exercise  of discretion on
                          _______
            the part of the judge.

                                         -16-
                                          16

            "sexual exploitation" in  a novel  manner solely  to give  it

            wider applicability.    Moreover, the  government's  solution

            would  result in  a subsection  that, on  its face,  enhances

            punishment for  a  pattern-of-activity  of  sexual  abuse  or

            exploitation,   but  that  in   practice  primarily  enhances

            punishment  for  traffickers.     This  can  hardly  be  what

            Congress, or the Commission,  intended when they included the

            phrase  "sexual abuse  or exploitation."   Had  they intended

            such a  result, they  would have listed  the trafficking-type

            offenses.  Both Congress and the Commission had opportunities

            to make clear  that they intended trafficking offenses  to be

            included in "sexual  exploitation."  Neither chose  to do so.

            Since  both Congress  and the  Commission have  distinguished

            trafficking  from "sexual  exploitation" previously,  we will

            not  now  construe  that  phrase  otherwise  merely  to  give

            subsection (b)(4) wider applicability.

                      Our  interpretation  of  subsection  (b)(4)  is  at

            variance   with   the   only   previous   reported   decision

            interpreting the provision.   In United States v.  Surratt, a
                                             _____________     _______

            district  court  suggested  in  dictum that  the  pattern  of

            activity enhancement  might apply  to "a pattern  of ordering

            child pornography through the mail."  867 F. Supp. 1317, 1320

            (N.D. Ohio 1994).  We think this dictum is  simply wrong, for

            all the reasons discussed above.

                                         -17-
                                          17

                      Having decided that sexual exploitation, as used in

            subsection (b)(4), does not include the computer transmission

            of child pornography, we pause to consider whether the record

            would allow us  to conclude that  the district court  applied

            the  pattern-of-activity enhancement  based on  at  least two

            instances of offense-related activity  other than the receipt
                                                   _____

            or  transmission of child pornography.  Were we able to reach

            this  conclusion,  it  would  not be  necessary  to  consider

            whether  the activity contemplated  by subsection (b)(4) must

            in  fact   be  offense-related,  for   the  district  court's

            consideration of other sexual  abuse or exploitation would be

            harmless.  A careful review  of the record, however, provides

            no basis for such a conclusion.  While Chapman, in the course

            of  transmitting  photographs  to Dan,  boasted  of  sexually

            abusing children  and discussed how  he and Dan  could commit

            unspeakable  atrocities against a  young girl, the government

            found no evidence that  Chapman actually committed or planned

            to  commit such  acts.   Similarly, although  Chapman boasted

            that the December 29 photograph depicted him engaging in anal

            intercourse  with a young girl, the district court found that

            that  photograph  did  not  even  depict  a  minor,  and  the

            government  offered  no  other  evidence   that  Chapman  had

            produced  any  child  pornography.   Thus,  while  there  was

            considerable  evidence  that  Chapman had  transmitted  child

            pornography   on  numerous  occasions,  and  had  engaged  in

                                         -18-
                                          18

            detailed conversations about sexually abusing, and murdering,

            young children, the record contains insufficient  evidence to

            conclude,  even on  a  preponderance standard,  that  Chapman

            actually sexually abused  or exploited minors  in conjunction

            with  his trafficking offense (or even during the time he was

            an AOL subscriber).   Consequently, we have no choice  but to

            consider   whether  the   district  court   was  correct   in

            considering  Chapman's past  activity in  applying subsection

            (b)(4).9       While  we disagree  with  the Surratt  court's
                                                         _______

            dictum, we  fully endorse its holding  that subsection (b)(4)

            is  inapplicable  to   past  sexual  abuse   or  exploitation

            unrelated  to the offense of conviction.  See Surratt, 867 F.
                                                      ___ _______

            Supp.  at 1320.  In  Surratt, the defendant  was convicted on
                                 _______

            one count of  receiving child pornography in  violation of 18

            U.S.C.   2252(a)(2); during a search of the defendant's home,

            the  government discovered  other  videotapes  depicting  the

            defendant sexually abusing his  own daughter.  Id.   Based on
                                                           ___

            this past  sexual abuse, the  government sought a  pattern of

                                
            ____________________

            9.  The government does not strongly argue that past activity
            should  be considered under  subsection (b)(4);  it maintains
            instead that the district  court's consideration of Chapman's
            previous activity  was "harmless error  if error at  all," in
            light of  Chapman's multiple computer transmissions  of child
            pornography.    However,  because  we  have  ruled  that  the
            transmissions  themselves  do  not  constitute  instances  of
            sexual  exploitation and  that the  record provides  no other
            basis  on  which the  district court  could have  applied the
            pattern-of-activity enhancement  for offense-related conduct,
            we must consider whether  it was proper to look  to previous,
            non-offense-related conduct.

                                         -19-
                                          19

            activity enhancement under  subsection (b)(4).   The  Surratt
                                                                  _______

            court declined to apply the enhancement, stating:

                      The   heading   of   subsection  (b)   is
                      "Specific  Offense Characteristics."   In
                      other  words,  enhancements  included  in
                      subsection  (b)  are  available when,  as
                                                             __
                      part  of the  offense of  conviction, the
                      ____________________________________
                      defendant  undertakes the  actions listed
                      therein.
                           The    government     argues    that
                      subsection   (b)(4)  is   different  from
                      subsections  (b)(1),   (b)(2)  or  (b)(3)
                      because  it  does  not  begin   with  the
                      language "If the offense  involved . .  .
                      ."   This  argument is  unavailing.   The
                      government appears to be  suggesting that
                      if the  defendant ever engaged  in such a
                                        ____
                      pattern of  behavior, whether as  part of
                      the  charged offense  or at  a completely
                      different   time  or   place,  subsection
                      (b)(4) should  apply.  This  Court cannot
                      agree.  If the Sentencing  Commission had
                      not   intended   for   the  language   of
                      subsection (b)(4)  to be applied  only to
                      the specific offense of  conviction, that
                      language   would   not  be   included  in
                      subsection   (b),    entitled   "Specific
                      Offense Characteristics."  The government
                      has pointed to no persuasive authority to
                      convince the Court that "specific offense
                      characteristic" means anything other than
                      characteristics  specific to  the offense
                      of conviction.

            Id. (emphasis added).
            ___

                      We agree  with this  reasoning.  If  the Commission

            intended  for  subsection (b)(4)  to  apply  to any  previous
                                                            ___

            sexual abuse or exploitation, while at the same time  placing

            the  provision under  "Specific Offense  Characteristics," we

            would expect that it would have taken efforts to resolve this

            glaring  contradiction.   It  clearly  knew  how  to  do  so:

                                         -20-
                                          20

            Application  Note  5 states  in  no uncertain  terms  that an

            upward  departure is  warranted  for any  instance of  sexual

            exploitation  or  abuse "whether  or  not  such sexual  abuse

            occurred during  the course of the offense."10   Cf. U.S.S.G.
                                                             ___

              2L1.2(1)-(2) (stating clearly that defendant's base offense

            level  must  be  increased   if  defendant  "previously"  was

            deported after  conviction for felony or  aggravated felony).

            The  absence  of  similar  language   in  subsection  (b)(4),

            combined  with the  fact  that the  subsection is  classified

            under  the  rubric  of  "Specific  Offense  Characteristics,"

            compels the conclusion that the application of the subsection

            does  require that  the  pattern of  activity  relate to  the
            ____

            offense of conviction.

                                         III.
                                         III.
                                         ____

                      For  all  the  foregoing  reasons,  we  vacate  the
                                                              vacate  the
                                                              ___________

            sentence and remand for resentencing.
            sentence and remand for resentencing.
            _____________________________________

                                
            ____________________

            10.  The district  court could have invoked  this application
            note and  departed upward based on  Chapman's previous sexual
            abuse of minors.

                                         -21-
                                          21