United States v. Peter Zagorski, 807 F.3d 291

In Oct. 2011 Zagorski chatted online with an undercover officer who posed as a man controlling a 12‑year‑old girl and proposed a live webcam sex show in exchange for child pornography.
Zagorski repeatedly requested the webcam show, offered his child‑porn videos as payment, and sent six videos over the internet; he also spoke once by phone with the purported minor (an FBI impersonation).
He was charged with distribution of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)) and attempted coercion/enticement (18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)); he pleaded guilty to the distribution count and the enticement count was dismissed at sentencing.
The district court applied U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(c)(1) (cross‑reference to the production guideline § 2G2.1) and a two‑level computer enhancement under § 2G2.1(b)(6)(B), producing an offense level of 39 (advisory 240 months) though the court imposed 99 months.
Zagorski appealed, arguing the cross‑reference and the computer enhancement were improperly applied; the D.C. Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Zagorski's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether § 2G2.2(c)(1) cross‑references to § 2G2.1 (production) for attempted procurement of a live sexual webcam performance by a minor	The chats and exchanges did not constitute an attempt to cause a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct; undercover’s willingness means Zagorski did not have to ‘transform’ the minor’s will	By offering porn as payment and sending videos, Zagorski took a substantial step and intended to cause a minor to perform live sexually explicit conduct, so the cross‑reference applies	The cross‑reference applies; Zagorski attempted to cause the minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct and § 2G2.1 governs
Whether § 2G2.1(b)(6)(B) two‑level computer enhancement applies (use of computer to solicit participation)	The phone call is not a “computer” and Zagorski merely reacted to an offer—he did not solicit participation	Zagorski repeatedly solicited the webcam show via online chats, offered and sent child pornography over the internet, and thus used a computer to solicit participation	The enhancement applies based on Zagorski’s internet communications and file transfers; the court disregarded the phone call but found sufficient computer use

United States v. Hite, 769 F.3d 1154 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (defines attempt as a substantial step plus criminal intent)
United States v. Laureys, 653 F.3d 27 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (discusses requirements to show attempt to ‘bend’ a child’s will under § 2422(b))
United States v. Whitesell, 314 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2002) (discusses ordinary meaning of “cause” in criminal context)
United States v. Mathis, 767 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2014) (treats cell phones as “computers” under certain guidelines)
United States v. Kramer, 631 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2011) (same conclusion on cell phones as computers)
United States v. Jass, 569 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2009) (interprets solicitation language as one person soliciting another to engage in sexual activities with a minor)