Defendant's sentence for transporting child pornography is affirmed in part where: 1) the district court based its application of the U.S.S.G. section 2G2.2 sentencing enhancement on defendant's distribution of child pornography, and thus committed no error; 2) nothing in the Guidelines supported defendant's argument that section 2G2.2(b)(3)(E) applied only to distribution of child pornography "directly" to a minor; and 3) because the district court made treatment a mandatory condition of defendant's supervised release, there was no vagueness in the order regarding who was to decide whether treatment is necessary. However, the sentence is vacated in part where the district court needed to conform the condition in the written judgment relating to possession of sexual materials to the corresponding condition imposed orally at the sentencing hearing.
Argued September 21, 2009
Decided January 22, 2010
Opinion by Judge Griffith
Beverly G. Dyer and A.J. Kramer, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Washington, DC
Courtney D. Spivey and Roy W. McLeese III, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Washington, DC