United States v. Baldwin, 743 F.3d 357

Baldwin was arrested in 2012 for possession of child pornography and being a felon in possession of a firearm; he admitted using peer-to-peer (P2P) software to search for and possess images and said he believed he did not share files.
He pleaded guilty to both counts and the Probation Office recommended a 2-level Sentencing Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) for "simple distribution."
Baldwin objected, arguing the enhancement requires a finding that he knew his use of P2P software made files accessible to others.
The District Court applied the enhancement, stating Baldwin "should very well have known" P2P software allows sharing, but did not expressly find he in fact knew.
The court sentenced Baldwin to 87 months (bottom of the Guidelines range after the enhancement).
On appeal the Second Circuit held the distribution enhancement requires a finding of actual knowledge that P2P use would make files accessible to others, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing because the District Court did not make that finding and the error was not harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) requires a finding of knowledge that files would be accessible to others	Government: the District Court implicitly made the knowledge finding and enhancement was proper	Baldwin: enhancement requires actual knowledge he was sharing; "should have known" is insufficient	Court: enhancement requires a finding that defendant knew P2P use would make files accessible to others; "should have known" is insufficient
Whether defendant's intent (purpose to distribute vs. receive) matters for the enhancement	Government: enhancement applies irrespective of primary purpose	Baldwin: emphasis on lack of intent to distribute	Court: intent/purpose is irrelevant; knowledge that files were accessible is required
Whether District Court’s failure to find knowledge was harmless error	Government: would have applied computer-use enhancement instead, yielding same range	Baldwin: reliance on duplicative enhancement uncertain; sentence at bottom of range suggests impact	Court: error not harmless; cannot assume same sentence would have been imposed
Whether willful blindness can satisfy knowledge requirement	Government: implicit that expertise can prove knowledge	Baldwin: denied actual knowledge	Court: willful ignorance (conscious avoidance) could satisfy knowledge on remand but District Court made no finding here

United States v. Reingold, 731 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2013) (held enhancement applies when defendant knowingly places files in a shared folder on P2P network)
United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) (cautioning that § 2G2.2 must be applied with care to avoid unreasonable sentences)
United States v. Simard, 731 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013) (standards for de novo review of legal questions in sentencing)
United States v. Hertular, 562 F.3d 433 (2d Cir. 2009) (review of factual findings for clear error)
United States v. Jass, 569 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2009) (harmless error doctrine in sentencing)
United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc) (when a procedural sentencing error is harmless)
United States v. Scotti, 47 F.3d 1237 (2d Cir. 1995) (vacatur and remand required when sentencing error present)
United States v. Svoboda, 347 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2003) (conscious avoidance/willful blindness can establish knowledge)