United States v. Montijo-Maysonet, 974 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2020). The court did not err in applying §2G1.3(b)(2)(b)’s two-level enhancement for unduly influencing a minor. A rebuttable presumption applied based on the defendant and minor’s age difference, and the defendant picked up the minor from middle school, offered her something to drink or smoke, drove her to a secluded motel, and complimented her hair and eyes.
United States v. Montijo-Maysonet, 974 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2020). The court did not err in applying §2G1.3(b)(3)(A)’s two-level enhancement for enticement. The defendant messaged the minor requesting a second “vuelta” to a seedy motel designed to ensure guests’ privacy. While not sexually explicit, the message constituted “implicit coaxing or encouragement designed to ‘achieve. . . the minor’s assent’ to unlawful sex.”
United States v. Montijo-Maysonet, 974 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2020). The court did not err in refusing to group two counts of transportation of the same minor victim because the counts occurred on two occasions and constituted two different harms. In addition, any error in not grouping an enticement count with one of four transportation counts (both counts involved the same sexual encounter with the same victim) was harmless because the addition of either 3.5 or 4.5 units resulted in the same Guidelines range.
United States v. Castillo, 981 F.3d 94 (1st. Cir 2020). The court erred when it applied the cross reference at §2A3.4(c)(1) based on sexual abuse that occurred on a different occasion from the offense of conviction.