UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4493
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ASHLEE C. LIEBERT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:12-cr-00096-1)
Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: February 7, 2014
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayne D. Inge, LAW OFFICE OF WAYNE D. INGE, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin, II, United States Attorney,
William B. King, II, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ashlee C. Liebert pled guilty to knowingly traveling
in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit
sexual conduct with a minor, as defined in 18 U.S.C.
§ 2423(f)(1) (2012), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) (2012).
On appeal, Liebert challenges his 144-month sentence alleging
that the district court erroneously applied the cross-reference
under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2G1.3(c)(1)
(2012). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we
review a sentence for reasonableness, “whether inside or outside
the Guidelines range,” and we apply a “deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 52
(2007). We first must ensure that the district court committed
no significant procedural error. Id. at 51. Only if the
sentence is procedurally reasonable, do we evaluate the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, again using an abuse
of discretion standard of review. Id.; United States v. Carter,
564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). When considering a district
court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines, we review
factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.
United States v. Mehta, 594 F.3d 277, 281 (4th Cir. 2010).
Section 2G1.3(c)(1) of the Sentencing Guidelines
provides that § 2G2.1 applies by cross-reference “[i]f the
2
offense involved causing, transporting, permitting, or offering
or seeking by notice or advertisement, a minor to engage in
sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual
depiction of such conduct.” USSG § 2G1.3(c)(1). Section
2G1.3(c)(l) “is to be construed broadly.” USSG § 2G1.3,
comment. (n.5).
We find no error in the district court’s application
of the cross-reference and rely on its finding that Liebert
specifically sought qualifying images from his twelve-year-old
victim via texting, ten of which were found in Liebert’s
possession. Indeed, Liebert, through counsel, admitted as much
to the district court. Thus, we find no clear error in the
district court’s factual findings supporting the cross-
reference. Mehta, 594 F.3d at 281. Accordingly, Liebert’s sole
claim on appeal is without merit, and we affirm his sentence.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3