Case: 21-50429 Document: 00516170210 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 18, 2022
No. 21-50429
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Beau Bryan Walker,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:20-CR-335-1
Before Barksdale, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Beau Bryan Walker pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2), (b)(1). He was sentenced to, inter alia,
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-50429 Document: 00516170210 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2022
No. 21-50429
192-months’ imprisonment. He contends the district court procedurally
erred in applying enhancements to his Sentencing Guidelines range under
Guidelines §§ 2G2.2(b)(2), (b)(5).
Although post-Booker, the Guidelines are advisory only, the district
court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating
the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51
(2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection to
an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. Delgado-Martinez,
564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009).
In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, unlike in this
instance, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual
findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517
F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). Instead, and as Walker concedes, because he
did not preserve his issues in district court, review is only for plain error. E.g.,
United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012).
Under that standard, he must show a forfeited plain error (clear or
obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that affected his
substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he
makes that showing, we have the discretion to correct the reversible plain
error, but generally should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness,
integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id. Walker fails to
show the court committed the requisite clear or obvious error.
Guideline § 2G2.2(b)(5) provides for a five-level enhancement for
“engag[ing] in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation
of a minor”. In claiming the court erred in applying this enhancement,
Walker contends the record fails to establish he engaged in conduct that
satisfies the definition of “sexual abuse or exploitation”. In the light of
2
Case: 21-50429 Document: 00516170210 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/18/2022
No. 21-50429
unrebutted evidence, including Walker’s use of an application’s live video-
chat feature to receive live video of children masturbating and his
participating in the application with the children, the court did not plainly err
in applying the enhancement. See Guideline § 2G2.2, cmt. n.1 (defining
“sexual abuse or exploitation” as conduct described in 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)
(punishing “[a]ny person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or
coerces any minor to engage in . . . any sexually explicit conduct for the
purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose
of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct”)); United States v.
McGee, 821 F.3d 644, 648 n.4 (5th Cir. 2016) (rejecting contention webcam
or video of explicit sexual conduct does not constitute “visual depiction”
within the meaning of § 2251(a)). Further, the court did not err in relying on
Walker’s unchallenged post-polygraph statements contained in the
presentence investigation report (PSR). See United States v. Barfield, 941
F.3d 757, 762–66 (5th Cir. 2019) (affirming reliance on defendant’s own post-
arrest statements at sentencing and noting defendant bears burden of
demonstrating information in PSR inaccurate).
For the other challenged enhancement, Guideline § 2G2.2(b)(2)
provides for a two-level enhancement “[i]f the material involved a
prepubescent minor or a minor who had not attained the age of 12 years”.
Walker’s contention that the term “prepubescent” is unconstitutionally
vague and cannot serve as “a free-standing, independent basis” to apply this
enhancement is unavailing. See Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886, 895
(2017) (holding Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenges). Moreover,
at sentencing, he did not challenge the investigating agent’s conclusion, for
purposes of the enhancement, that the individuals in some of the videos
Walker possessed were “prepubescent”, nor does he do so now.
Accordingly, he fails to show the court plainly erred in applying the
§ 2G2.2(b)(2) enhancement on that basis. United States v. Perez, 484 F.3d
3
Case: 21-50429 Document: 00516170210 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/18/2022
No. 21-50429
735, 745 (5th Cir. 2007) (upholding enhancement because images found in
defendant’s possession depicted “prepubescent children”).
AFFIRMED.
4