United States v Evans

Evans challenged his sentence for production of child pornography. The panel affirmed. It held that the commentary to the sentencing guidelines states that acts of producing child pornography can be used to satisfy the pattern of acidity enhancement even if based on the acts giving rise to the conviction. Here, Evans admitted two separate acts of production and the pattern enhancement applies. The opinion was originally issued as an unpublished order and was ordered published by the panel on the government’s motion.