Clarification of “Exchange for Valuable Consideration” Enhancement Under Amended U.S.S.G. §2G2.2(b)(3)(B)

Introduction

United States v. Eugene Douglas Reid, III, 23-14078 (11th Cir. Apr. 29, 2025) arises from a federal child‐pornography investigation via the Kik messaging app. Undercover agents infiltrated invitation-only groups where users shared illegal images and video. One user—“strokerace597”—distributed numerous files. Through IP tracing, subpoenas, and witness testimony, Reid was identified as that user.

Reid was charged with three counts: one count of distributing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) & (b)(1), and two counts of transporting child pornography under § 2252A(a)(1) & (b)(1). He pleaded not guilty, went to trial, and was convicted on all counts. At sentencing, the district court applied a five-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) (“exchange for valuable consideration”) and imposed a 288-month term of imprisonment.

On appeal, Reid challenged (1) the admission of two uncharged‐conduct screen‐recording exhibits under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and (2) the § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) enhancement. The Eleventh Circuit panel affirmed the convictions but vacated and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court misapplied the amended guideline’s “exchange” requirement.

Summary of the Judgment

1. Rule 404(b) Evidence: The court held that Exhibits 2 and 3—screen recordings of uncharged Kik postings—were properly admitted to prove Reid’s intent. Reid’s not-guilty plea made intent a live issue, and the recordings depicted the same mental state and conduct as the charged counts. The probative value outweighed any unfair prejudice, and the district court’s limiting instructions cured potential misuse.

2. Sentencing Enhancement: The district court applied a five-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) based on an “expectation of exchange” in the private chat groups. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the court erroneously relied on pre-2016 caselaw interpreting the prior “expectation of receipt” language, rather than the text of the amended guideline, which requires an actual “exchange for any valuable consideration.” The panel vacated and remanded for resentencing without expressing a view on whether the enhancement ultimately applies.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) authority: United States v. Culver, 598 F.3d 740 (11th Cir. 2010); Barton, 909 F.3d 1323; Phaknikone, 605 F.3d 1099; Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324; Frediani, 790 F.3d 1196; Zapata, 139 F.3d 1355; Cenephat, 115 F.4th 1359; Alfaro-Moncada, 607 F.3d 720; Smith, 459 F.3d 1276.
• Sentencing Guideline interpretation: Bender, 290 F.3d 1279; Little, 864 F.3d 1283; Spriggs, 666 F.3d 1284; Vadnais, 667 F.3d 1206; Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189 (2016); Cruz, 713 F.3d 600; Oliver, 919 F.3d 393; Halverson, 897 F.3d 645; Morehouse, 34 F.4th 381; Randall, 34 F.4th 867.

Legal Reasoning

Rule 404(b) Admission: A three-part test governs extrinsic bad-act evidence:

1. Relevance to a material issue other than character (here, intent);
2. Sufficient proof that the defendant committed the act; and
3. Probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rule 403.

Reid’s intent was at issue because he denied controlling the strokerace597 account and entered a not-guilty plea. The recordings showed identical conduct and mental state to the charged offenses, thus bearing directly on knowledge and intent. Any risk of prejudice was minimal: the recordings were carefully limited in scope, the jury heard them in context, and the district court gave clear limiting instructions.

Sentencing Enhancement (§2G2.2(b)(3)(B)): The applicable guideline calls for a two-level increase for distribution and a five-level enhancement when the defendant “distributed in exchange for any valuable consideration,” with a commentary example of trading child pornography for other images. The 2016 amendment removed the phrase “expectation of receipt” and replaced it with “in exchange for.” In Reid’s case, the district court relied on pre-amendment caselaw permitting an inference of expectation in file-sharing contexts, thereby misapplying the amendment’s plain text.

Under Molina-Martinez, an incorrect Guidelines calculation constitutes a significant procedural error requiring vacatur and remand for proper application of the current guideline language.

Impact on Future Cases

• Rule 404(b): This decision reaffirms that admission of uncharged-conduct evidence to prove intent is proper where intent is genuinely contested and the evidence is closely analogous to the charged misconduct. Careful limiting instructions and tailored presentation remain essential to avoid undue prejudice.

• §2G2.2(b)(3)(B) Enhancement: Sentencing courts must apply the post-2016 “in exchange for” formulation as written. Mere expectation of reciprocity in peer sharing does not suffice. Defendants and probation officers should challenge any enhancement based on the outdated “expectation” standard and require proofs of an actual bargain or quid pro quo for images.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Rule 404(b) Extrinsic Evidence: Evidence of prior or uncharged bad acts cannot be used to show a person is generally “bad,” but it can be used to prove specific issues like intent, plan, or absence of accident. Courts weigh usefulness against the risk of unfair prejudice.
• “Exchange for Valuable Consideration”: After 2016, the guideline requires an actual swap—one thing for another—not just a hope that someone might reciprocate. It’s the difference between “I traded you these illegal files for your illegal files” versus “I put them on the network and maybe someone else will share back.”
• Procedural Error at Sentencing: When a court misreads or misapplies the Guidelines, the resulting sentence cannot stand and must be redone following the correct rule.

Conclusion

United States v. Reid clarifies two key points. First, uncharged-conduct recordings may be admitted under Rule 404(b) to prove intent—particularly when intent is squarely in dispute—so long as their probative value outweighs any unfair prejudice. Second, the Eleventh Circuit insists on strict adherence to the amended Guidelines: to trigger the five-level §2G2.2(b)(3)(B) enhancement, there must be proof of an actual “exchange” of images or other valuable consideration. District courts must no longer rely on outdated “expectation of receipt” precedents. Sentences calculated under the prior standard are subject to vacatur and remand for resentencing under the correct test.