F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 6 1999 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 98-3164 v. (D. Kansas) TERRENCE M. BROWN, (D.C. No. 97-CR-10114-01-MLB)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , KELLY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Terrence M. Brown pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 2251, which
prohibits the sexual exploitation of children, and was sentenced to a term of 57
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the *
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. months’ imprisonment. Brown now appeals the imposition of this sentence,
arguing that he was entitled to two three-level reductions in his base offense level
because his offense was merely an attempt and/or a solicitation rather than a
completed crime. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In August 1996, Brown invited Matthew Keller, a 16-year-old neighbor boy
whom Brown had hired to mow his lawn, to his office, ostensibly to learn about
computers. Keller went to Brown’s office for this purpose on at least eight
occasions. On one such occasion, Brown asked Keller if he would like to earn
some extra money working as a model. Brown told Keller that he could earn
$5,000 by posing for nude and semi-nude pictures. In an attempt to show Keller
exactly what kind of pictures he had in mind, Brown called up several pictures on
his laptop computer, depicting naked and scantily-clad young people. Brown told
Keller that he (Brown) could take the pictures, or Keller could take them himself.
Brown also inquired if Keller had any friends who would be interested in earning
extra money in this way. Keller refused Brown’s offer, telling him that he did not
think it was right for him to pose for such photographs, and that he did not feel
comfortable asking any friends to pose.
-2- At some point during the next few weeks, Keller informed his mother of the
conversation he had had with Brown. Keller’s mother promptly notified local
police officials, who, after interviewing Keller on September 11, 1996, brought in
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to assist on the case.
The FBI, in an effort to obtain further incriminating evidence against
Brown, instructed Keller to telephone Brown and inquire about whether the
modeling offer was still open. Keller called Brown twice on September 23, 1996,
and the FBI recorded both conversations. Brown, however, had backed off, and,
although he offered to loan Keller a few hundred dollars if he needed it, told
Keller “that they could not do the pictures because he had since learned that it
was illegal to do so.” Appellant’s Br. at 4, app. C at 5.
On October 3, 1996, pursuant to a duly-obtained search warrant, authorities
searched Brown’s residence, and found, among other things, computer equipment,
several computer software disks, and some video tapes. A review of the computer
equipment and disks revealed “several images of nude young males depicted in
sexual conduct.” R. Vol. 3, at 6.
On September 4, 1997, Brown was named in a two-count indictment filed
in federal court in Kansas. Count I charged Brown with “knowingly and
intentionally receiv[ing] or distribut[ing] a visual depiction of a minor engaging
in sexually explicit conduct,” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). R. Vol. 1,
-3- Tab 1 at 1. Count II charged Brown with “knowingly and intentionally induc[ing]
or entic[ing] a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct,” in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2251(a). R. Vol. 1, Tab 1 at 2.
In February 1998, Brown entered into a plea agreement with prosecutors,
under which he pled guilty to Count II, and the government dropped Count I. In a
hearing on February 17, 1998, the district court approved the plea agreement and
scheduled a sentencing hearing for May 1998. In March 1998, a probation officer
prepared a presentence investigation report (PSR), in which he made the
following recommendations: (1) Brown’s base offense level should be 25, based
on § 2G2.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines; (2) Brown should receive
a three-level reduction in his base offense level for acceptance of responsibility;
(3) Brown should receive a criminal history score of five, placing him in criminal
history category III; and (4) Brown’s sentence should be between 51 and 63
months’ imprisonment.
Brown filed three objections to the PSR, only one of which is relevant here.
Brown argued that he was entitled to two additional three-level reductions in his
base offense level, pursuant to § 2X1.1 of the Guidelines, because his offense was
only an attempt and/or a solicitation, and not a completed offense. Brown
contended that his adjusted base offense level should be 16, rather than 22.
-4- At the sentencing hearing, the district court considered and overruled all of
Brown’s objections. The district court stated that because “the substantive crime
of ‘attempt’ is already contained in the statute,” § 2X1.1 was not applicable to
Brown’s attempt argument, and that because “‘solicitation’ is synonymous with
the language of [§] 2251(a),” Brown’s solicitation argument failed as well. R.
Vol. 3, at 24. The court stated that Brown had “pled guilty to a crime that
includes attempt and I just . . . don’t understand why in the absence of some
controlling authority that I . . . should give him a three level reduction for
attempt.” R. Vol. 2, at 57.
Having overruled Brown’s objections, the district court sentenced Brown to
57 months imprisonment, and directed that this federal sentence run consecutively
to a state sentence Brown was already serving. 1 Brown now appeals from this
1 The district court noted in passing that, had Brown committed his offense merely six weeks later, he would have been sentenced to a minimum of 30 years in a federal penitentiary. This is because the relevant statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2251, was amended on September 30, 1996. Prior to the amendment, subsection (d) of that statute read as follows: Any individual who violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, this section shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both, but, if such individual has a prior conviction under this chapter or chapter 109A, such individual shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 2251(d) (1995).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 6 1999 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 98-3164 v. (D. Kansas) TERRENCE M. BROWN, (D.C. No. 97-CR-10114-01-MLB)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , KELLY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Terrence M. Brown pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 2251, which
prohibits the sexual exploitation of children, and was sentenced to a term of 57
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the *
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. months’ imprisonment. Brown now appeals the imposition of this sentence,
arguing that he was entitled to two three-level reductions in his base offense level
because his offense was merely an attempt and/or a solicitation rather than a
completed crime. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In August 1996, Brown invited Matthew Keller, a 16-year-old neighbor boy
whom Brown had hired to mow his lawn, to his office, ostensibly to learn about
computers. Keller went to Brown’s office for this purpose on at least eight
occasions. On one such occasion, Brown asked Keller if he would like to earn
some extra money working as a model. Brown told Keller that he could earn
$5,000 by posing for nude and semi-nude pictures. In an attempt to show Keller
exactly what kind of pictures he had in mind, Brown called up several pictures on
his laptop computer, depicting naked and scantily-clad young people. Brown told
Keller that he (Brown) could take the pictures, or Keller could take them himself.
Brown also inquired if Keller had any friends who would be interested in earning
extra money in this way. Keller refused Brown’s offer, telling him that he did not
think it was right for him to pose for such photographs, and that he did not feel
comfortable asking any friends to pose.
-2- At some point during the next few weeks, Keller informed his mother of the
conversation he had had with Brown. Keller’s mother promptly notified local
police officials, who, after interviewing Keller on September 11, 1996, brought in
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to assist on the case.
The FBI, in an effort to obtain further incriminating evidence against
Brown, instructed Keller to telephone Brown and inquire about whether the
modeling offer was still open. Keller called Brown twice on September 23, 1996,
and the FBI recorded both conversations. Brown, however, had backed off, and,
although he offered to loan Keller a few hundred dollars if he needed it, told
Keller “that they could not do the pictures because he had since learned that it
was illegal to do so.” Appellant’s Br. at 4, app. C at 5.
On October 3, 1996, pursuant to a duly-obtained search warrant, authorities
searched Brown’s residence, and found, among other things, computer equipment,
several computer software disks, and some video tapes. A review of the computer
equipment and disks revealed “several images of nude young males depicted in
sexual conduct.” R. Vol. 3, at 6.
On September 4, 1997, Brown was named in a two-count indictment filed
in federal court in Kansas. Count I charged Brown with “knowingly and
intentionally receiv[ing] or distribut[ing] a visual depiction of a minor engaging
in sexually explicit conduct,” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). R. Vol. 1,
-3- Tab 1 at 1. Count II charged Brown with “knowingly and intentionally induc[ing]
or entic[ing] a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct,” in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2251(a). R. Vol. 1, Tab 1 at 2.
In February 1998, Brown entered into a plea agreement with prosecutors,
under which he pled guilty to Count II, and the government dropped Count I. In a
hearing on February 17, 1998, the district court approved the plea agreement and
scheduled a sentencing hearing for May 1998. In March 1998, a probation officer
prepared a presentence investigation report (PSR), in which he made the
following recommendations: (1) Brown’s base offense level should be 25, based
on § 2G2.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines; (2) Brown should receive
a three-level reduction in his base offense level for acceptance of responsibility;
(3) Brown should receive a criminal history score of five, placing him in criminal
history category III; and (4) Brown’s sentence should be between 51 and 63
months’ imprisonment.
Brown filed three objections to the PSR, only one of which is relevant here.
Brown argued that he was entitled to two additional three-level reductions in his
base offense level, pursuant to § 2X1.1 of the Guidelines, because his offense was
only an attempt and/or a solicitation, and not a completed offense. Brown
contended that his adjusted base offense level should be 16, rather than 22.
-4- At the sentencing hearing, the district court considered and overruled all of
Brown’s objections. The district court stated that because “the substantive crime
of ‘attempt’ is already contained in the statute,” § 2X1.1 was not applicable to
Brown’s attempt argument, and that because “‘solicitation’ is synonymous with
the language of [§] 2251(a),” Brown’s solicitation argument failed as well. R.
Vol. 3, at 24. The court stated that Brown had “pled guilty to a crime that
includes attempt and I just . . . don’t understand why in the absence of some
controlling authority that I . . . should give him a three level reduction for
attempt.” R. Vol. 2, at 57.
Having overruled Brown’s objections, the district court sentenced Brown to
57 months imprisonment, and directed that this federal sentence run consecutively
to a state sentence Brown was already serving. 1 Brown now appeals from this
1 The district court noted in passing that, had Brown committed his offense merely six weeks later, he would have been sentenced to a minimum of 30 years in a federal penitentiary. This is because the relevant statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2251, was amended on September 30, 1996. Prior to the amendment, subsection (d) of that statute read as follows: Any individual who violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, this section shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both, but, if such individual has a prior conviction under this chapter or chapter 109A, such individual shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 2251(d) (1995). Although Brown had two prior state convictions relating to the sexual exploitation of children, he had never before been convicted under federal child sexual exploitation statutes, and was therefore subject only to a maximum 10-year sentence, with no mandatory minimum sentence. See also (continued...)
-5- sentence, and asserts that he is entitled to two additional three-level reductions in
base offense level because his offense was an attempt and a solicitation rather
than a completed offense.
DISCUSSION
We believe that the district court correctly determined that Brown was not
entitled to either of the requested three-level reductions in his base offense level.
We discuss the attempt and solicitation issues in turn.
Section 2X1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines provides for a
three-level reduction in a convict’s base offense level if the offense was merely
“an attempt” and not a fully completed crime. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 2X1.1(b)(1) (1995) 2 ; see United States v. Bolden , 132 F.3d 1353, 1357
(10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 1686 (1998). The statute to which
Brown pled guilty reads, in relevant part, as follows:
1 (...continued) U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.1 (1995). However, after the September 1996 amendments to the statute, Brown would have been subject to a 30-year minimum sentence, because the 1996 amendments not only stiffened the sentences, but also incorporated prior state convictions for child sexual exploitation into the sentencing calculus. See 18 U.S.C. § 2251(d) (1998). 2 The 1995 version of the Sentencing Guidelines Manual was applied in this case, and neither party contends that a different version should be applied. R. Vol. 3, at 7.
-6- Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in . . . any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection (d) . . . .
18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) (1995). Brown did not plead guilty to an attempt to violate
§ 2251(a), but rather pled guilty to a completed crime. Because Brown committed
a completed crime, rather than a mere attempt, the district court’s decision not to
apply § 2X1.1 was proper.
We also agree that the district court properly denied Brown’s request for a
separate three-level reduction for solicitation. Guideline § 2X1.1(b)(3) mandates
that a convict’s base offense level be reduced by three levels “[i]f [it is] a
solicitation,” unless “the statute treats solicitation of the substantive offense
identically with the substantive offense.”
The relevant statute, by using terms such as “entice” and “induce,” clearly
intended to treat solicitation of the crime “identically with the substantive
offense.” USSG § 2X1.1(b)(3)(B) (1995). Under such circumstances, the
Guidelines dictate that no three-level reduction should issue.
-7- CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court properly
refused to grant Brown’s requests for two three-level reductions in his base
offense level. Brown’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge
-8-