United States v. George Roman, III , 393 F. App'x 149 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 09-30841     Document: 00511212475          Page: 1    Date Filed: 08/24/2010
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    August 24, 2010
    No. 09-30841
    Summary Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    GEORGE L. ROMAN, III,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 2:08-CR-227-1
    Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    George L. Roman, III, appeals the 210-month sentence he received for
    knowingly and intentionally distributing child pornography, in violation of
    18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A).         He asserts that the district court erroneously
    imposed a five-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) based upon
    a finding that his offense involved the distribution for the receipt, or expectation
    of receipt, of a thing of value. He argues that, although there was evidence that
    he distributed and received child pornography, there was no indication that he
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
    R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 09-30841    Document: 00511212475 Page: 2         Date Filed: 08/24/2010
    No. 09-30841
    distributed the offending images either for the purpose of receiving images in
    return or with the expectation that he would receive images in response. He
    contends that he only responded to requests from unidentified users in an online
    chat room and that his conduct did not involve an in-kind transaction for a thing
    of value.
    We review the district court’s interpretation and application of the
    Guidelines de novo and its factual determinations for clear error. United States
    v. Rodriguez-Mesa, 
    443 F.3d 397
    , 401 (5th Cir. 2006). Section 2G2.2(b)(3)(B)
    provides for a five-level enhancement if the offense involved the distribution of
    images “for the receipt, or expectation of receipt, of a thing of value, but not for
    pecuniary gain.” § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B). The application notes to § 2G2.2 elaborate on
    the kind of distribution to which subdivision (b)(3)(B) was intended to apply:
    “[A]ny transaction, including bartering or other in-kind transaction, that is
    conducted for a thing of value, but not for profit.” § 2G2.2 cmt. n.1. In a case
    involving the exchange of child pornographic material, the “thing of value” is
    “the child pornographic material received in exchange for other child
    pornographic material bartered in consideration for the material received.” Id.
    The record supports that the district court properly found that Roman was
    subject to an enhancement under § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B). Roman not only distributed
    images to like-minded individuals in a chat room related to child pornography,
    he also received a large number of child pornography images from others and
    downloaded images originating from the chat room. His exchange of images
    with other purveyors of child pornography supports that he had an interest in
    facilitating a continuing relationship involving the reciprocal transfer of images,
    i.e., Roman distributed images with the expectation that he would receive other
    images of child pornography or maintain a relationship with others who
    distributed child pornography.
    Roman also acknowledged that he traded child pornography with other
    online users. The act of trading amounts to a quid-pro-quo exchange conforming
    2
    Case: 09-30841    Document: 00511212475 Page: 3       Date Filed: 08/24/2010
    No. 09-30841
    with the commentary’s definition of the type of distribution that qualifies for an
    enhancement under § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) (i.e., “bartering or [any] other in-kind
    transaction”). § 2G2.2 cmt. n.1. The district court therefore did not err in
    applying a five-level enhancement pursuant to § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B).
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-30841

Citation Numbers: 393 F. App'x 149

Judges: DeMOSS, Elrod, Per Curiam, Stewart

Filed Date: 8/24/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023