United States v. Maurice Smith
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13083
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Smith, owner of a window‑washing business, recruited a homeless 17‑year‑old (M.S.), moved her into his home, began a sexual relationship, and forced her to work as a prostitute in his trafficking operation.
- The jury convicted Smith under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a), (b)(1) for sex trafficking of a minor by force, fraud, or coercion and found he knew force/fraud/coercion would be used and that the victim was under 18.
- Presentence report set a base offense level of 34 under U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(a)(1), recommended +2 for undue influence of a minor (§ 2G1.3(b)(2)(B)), and +2 for an organizer/manager role (§ 3B1.1(c)).
- Smith argued the § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) enhancement impermissibly double‑counted conduct already covered by the § 1591‑based base offense level, and that § 3B1.1(c) was improper because he did not supervise other participants in the child‑trafficking offense.
- The district court applied both enhancements, sentenced Smith to 360 months, and Smith appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Smith's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) undue‑influence enhancement double‑counts the § 2G1.3(a)(1) base level derived from § 1591 | Enhancement duplicates the § 1591 element of force/fraud/coercion and thus impermissible double‑counting | Guidelines allow cumulative application where provisions serve distinct purposes; undue influence can cover non‑force/fraud coercive conduct | Affirmed: no double‑counting — undue influence and § 1591 elements serve different purposes and both may apply |
| Whether § 3B1.1(c) organizer/supervisor enhancement was proper | No other "participants" in the § 1591 offense — victim cannot be a participant; thus no basis for enhancement | Evidence showed Michelle (the "bottom bitch") knowingly abetted and groomed the victim — she was a participant whom Smith organized/supervised | Affirmed: § 3B1.1(c) properly applied because a non‑victim accomplice knowingly abetted and qualified as a participant |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by not holding an evidentiary hearing on PRE‑SENTENCE report objections | Argued factual disputes warranted an evidentiary hearing to challenge victim testimony in the PSR | Court reviewed objections, found victim testimony credible, and complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) | Affirmed: no error — court addressed objections and made credibility findings without need for additional hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wright, 373 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining when cumulative enhancements address different harms and may both apply)
- United States v. Williams, 693 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2012) (permitting cumulative application where base offense may not encompass an enhancement’s specific conduct)
- United States v. Holt, 510 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2007) (courts infer Commission intent to avoid enhancements that duplicate accounted‑for harm)
- United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying multiple enhancements when each addresses separate concerns)
- United States v. Rosas, 615 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing double‑counting and § 1B1.1 commentary)
- United States v. Vizcarra, 668 F.3d 516 (7th Cir. 2012) (guidance that double‑counting is disfavored absent clear Commission intent)
- United States v. Whitney, 673 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2012) (§ 3B1.1(c) applies when defendant exercised control over others involved in the offense)
- United States v. Cyphers, 130 F.3d 1361 (9th Cir. 1997) (a knowing aider/abetter qualifies as a “participant” under § 3B1.1)
- United States v. Brooks, 610 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing undue influence as compromising voluntariness of minor’s behavior)