Court Opinion

ID: 9490382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:41:49.478938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:04.017726
License: Public Domain

MANION, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the court’s decision to affirm Black’s conviction. But regarding the sentence, I would reverse the district court and would remand for re-sentencing. The Department of Justice has filed a cross-appeal, and I would remand on that basis.
The court’s opinion stresses an important (and dispositive) point — that Black was a frequent user of the Internet both to view and to dispense child pornography.
“The [AOL] records revealed both distribution and receipt of files by defendant. On five occasions he was the originator of several child pornography files onto the AOL system (i.e., he was the AOL subscriber who first “uploaded” the image on to the system), on six other occasions he received such files, and on two other occasions he distributed such files by forwarding the images he received to another AOL subscriber.”
Ante at 200 (emphases added).
So we agree that Black “distributed” child pornography. U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(2) is unequivocal on this issue. “If the offense involved distribution, increase by the number of levels from the table in § 2F1.1 corresponding to the retail value of the material, but in no event by less than five levels.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, even if the child pornography is worth less than $40,000,1 the Guidelines mandate a five-level increase when the distribution of child pornography is involved. This also distinguishes the offense of distribution from mere receipt. Even if the retail value is negligible or not discernible, the Guidelines in effect at the time of Black’s sentencing imposed a base offense level of 15 for receiving child pornographic material. A distributor of the same or similar material involving the exploitation of minors gets no less than a five-level increase. Distributors of pornographic material that has no ascertainable value, but is nevertheless harmful, cannot bypass the Guidelines.
And there is no reason to believe that Application Note 1 requires the government to prove that the defendant distributed his pornography to others “for pecuniary gain.” While the note states that distribution “includes” any act related to distribution for pecuniary gain, the note should not be interpreted as limiting the types of distribution that are subject to the enhancement. (The Guidelines themselves define “includes” as a term of illustration, not limitation. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, Application Note 2 (“[t]he term ‘includes’ is not exhaustive”).) In fact, the note is quite expansive. Its purpose is to instruct courts that where there is a ‘pecuniary motive, distribution includes related acts production, transportation, possession with intent to distribute that ordinarily are not considered acts of distribution. In other words, the Application Note enlarges the scope of activity subject to the enhancement. In cases like this one, it certainly should not be read to take away an enhancement mandated by the simple and unqualified language of § 2G2.2(b)(2). Moreover, it is worth noting for future cases that “pecuniary gain” itself is a broad concept, and retail sales are
*204but one way to create value. A distributor may barter or trade for images on the Internet,- perhaps even as a member of a pornographic trading club who must prove his bona fides by contributing to a pool of pictures like those Black sought and distributed.
What Black distributed apparently is called “cyberporn.” Thomas E. Weber, For Those Who Scoff At Internet Commerce, Here’s a Hot Market, Wall St. J., May 20, 1997, at Al. Revenue from the adult cyber-porn market topped at least $50 million last year. Id. But the market Black participated in is far worse. Whether he acted for profit or for some other inexplicable reason, his activity still furthered the dissemination of child pornography and the victimization of children. The pornographic pictures are on the Internet because he put them there, and they may well remain in cyberspace in perpetuity. Bruce Black distributed child pornography, but despite the plain language of the Guidelines, his sentence does not reflect that. I would remand and instruct the district court to see that it does.

. Section 2F1.1 sets out a graduated scale of progressively increasing offense levels designed to punish offenders based on the amount of loss in fraud cases involving forgery and counterfeiting. The cross-reference to this section for sexual exploitation of minors targets large distributors who could be trafficking in pornography worth hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars. By placing a minimum on the level increase at five (which happens to be $40,000 to $70,000 under § 2F1.1), Congress is stressing that regardless of the retail value, if any, distributors of child pornography must receive a minimum five-level increase.