United States v. Dustin Randall, 34 F.4th 867

Randall used Kik and Dropbox to trade child pornography with another user (Proctor); chat logs show reciprocal links and explicit trading language.
Law enforcement seized hundreds of images/videos from Randall’s and Proctor’s accounts; Randall admitted trading and pleaded guilty to one count of receipt and one count of distribution under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A.
At sentencing the district court applied a five-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) (distribution "in exchange for any valuable consideration") and sentenced Randall to prison and lifetime supervised release.
The district court also imposed a $5,000 Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (JVTA) assessment on each conviction (total $10,000).
On appeal Randall challenged (1) whether the § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) enhancement requires that the defendant actually receive valuable consideration, and (2) whether § 3014(a)’s $5,000 assessment is per-defendant or per-conviction.
The Ninth Circuit upheld both rulings: the enhancement does not require receipt, and the JVTA assessment is imposed per qualifying conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) requires the defendant to actually receive "valuable consideration" to trigger the 5-level enhancement	Randall: enhancement requires receipt (transaction must be completed).	Government: only the defendant's agreement and completion of his part (knowingly distributing with intent to obtain value) is required; actual receipt unnecessary.	The enhancement requires (1) agreement to exchange, (2) knowing distribution, and (3) distribution for the specific purpose of obtaining value; actual receipt by defendant is not required.
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3014(a) imposes the $5,000 JVTA assessment once per defendant or for each qualifying conviction	Randall: § 3014(a) imposes a single $5,000 assessment per defendant per case.	Government: § 3014(a) imposes $5,000 for each qualifying conviction (per-count).	§ 3014(a) requires a $5,000 assessment for each qualifying conviction; district court properly imposed $10,000 for two convictions.

United States v. Oliver, 919 F.3d 393 (6th Cir.) (endorsing that § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) does not require actual receipt of value)
United States v. Halverson, 897 F.3d 645 (5th Cir.) (interpreting enhancement to require that the valuable consideration come from the exchange partner)
United States v. Johnman, 948 F.3d 612 (3d Cir.) (holding § 3014 assessment is per conviction)
United States v. Haverkamp, 958 F.3d 145 (2d Cir.) (holding § 3014 assessment is per offender)
Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (1996) (Supreme Court: § 3013 requires special assessment for every conviction)
United States v. Prien-Pinto, 917 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir.) (discussing that Application Notes are authoritative interpretations of the Guidelines)