United States v. Roger Chambers, 878 F.3d 616

Roger Chambers pleaded guilty in 2006 to lascivious acts with a child (Iowa); he was sentenced to state prison and later released on parole.
In 2013 while on parole and working at a VA medical center, investigators found child‑pornography files in internet cache folders associated with a workplace computer and additional child‑pornography files on a laptop seized in 2006.
Chambers admitted to viewing child pornography on the VA computer; his parole was revoked and a federal grand jury indicted him on two counts (access with intent to view in 2013; possession in 2006). He pleaded guilty to possession; the other count was dismissed at sentencing.
The PSR recommended a five‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5) (pattern of activity involving sexual abuse/exploitation of a minor) based on the 2006 state conviction and supporting minutes of testimony, and recommended two criminal‑history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) because some relevant conduct occurred while Chambers was on parole.
The district court applied the § 2G2.2(b)(5) enhancement, found by a preponderance that the 2006 abuse occurred on multiple occasions (relying on the victim’s statements and Chambers’s own corroborating admissions), added two criminal‑history points under § 4A1.1(d), and sentenced Chambers to 135 months’ imprisonment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2G2.2(b)(5) five‑level enhancement applies	Government: minutes, police reports, and Chambers’s statements show a pattern of multiple instances of sexual abuse of the same minor	Chambers: minutes are unreliable hearsay; evidence does not show more than a single incident, so no "pattern"	Affirmed: court may rely on corroborated hearsay at sentencing; Chambers’s admissions and the victim’s references to multiple incidents satisfy pattern requirement
Whether two criminal‑history points under § 4A1.1(d) were properly added for conduct while under a criminal‑justice sentence	Government: the 2013 access conduct was relevant conduct to the 2006 possession offense (common purpose/means: viewing child pornography) and occurred while Chambers was on parole	Chambers: the dismissed workplace access is not part of a common scheme with the possession (different times and locations); too remote and too general	Affirmed: conduct need not be contemporaneous; the two offenses shared common purpose and modus operandi, so § 4A1.1(d) points were proper

United States v. Miller, 511 F.3d 821 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for Guidelines application)
United States v. Pepper, 747 F.3d 520 (8th Cir.) (sentencing courts may consider reliable out‑of‑court information)
Williams v. Oklahoma, 358 U.S. 576 (1959) (sentencing judges may consider unsworn out‑of‑court information consistent with due process)
United States v. Wallace, 408 F.3d 1046 (8th Cir.) (reliable hearsay admissible at sentencing)
United States v. Shackelford, 462 F.3d 794 (8th Cir.) (layers of hearsay admissible if corroborated)
United States v. Clayton, 787 F.3d 929 (8th Cir.) (minutes of testimony can supply reliable indicia when corroborated)
United States v. Woodard, 694 F.3d 950 (8th Cir.) (§ 2G2.2(b)(5) has no temporal limitation)
United States v. Hamell, 3 F.3d 1187 (8th Cir.) (closely timed acts can nonetheless be separate criminal episodes)
United States v. Chappell, 704 F.3d 551 (8th Cir.) (distinct criminal episodes when at different time/location)
United States v. Willoughby, 653 F.3d 738 (8th Cir.) (temporal separation can show distinct offenses)
United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. en banc) (plain‑error review framework)
Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (plain‑error standard articulated)
United States v. Starr, 533 F.3d 985 (8th Cir.) (relevant conduct may include remote prior acts)