United States v. Viramontes-Hernandez:
Clarifying “Relevant Conduct” for the §2G2.2(b)(5) Pattern-of-Activity Enhancement

Introduction

United States v. Emanuel Jose Viramontes-Hernandez, No. 24-1773 (6th Cir. July 22, 2025), concerns the application of the five-level “pattern of activity” enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guideline (USSG) § 2G2.2(b)(5) in a child-pornography possession case. The Sixth Circuit was asked to decide whether (1) trial counsel was ineffective for withdrawing an objection to the enhancement and (2) the 168-month sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Central to both issues was the court’s reading of “relevant conduct” under USSG § 1B1.3 and whether the defendant’s repeated sexual abuse of his younger brother—which produced several of the images he later possessed—could be counted as the “pattern” supporting § 2G2.2(b)(5).

The panel (Chief Judge Sutton, and Circuit Judges Stranch and Ritz; opinion by Judge Stranch) affirmed the district court, holding that (i) the abuse was properly treated as relevant conduct, (ii) any objection to the enhancement would have been meritless, and therefore counsel was not ineffective, and (iii) the district court’s within-Guidelines sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.

Summary of the Judgment

• Ineffective Assistance Claim: Rejected. Because the enhancement clearly applied, withdrawing the objection was not deficient performance under Strickland v. Washington.
• Procedural Reasonableness: No plain error. The district court properly calculated the Guidelines, considered § 3553(a) factors, and explained its decision.
• Substantive Reasonableness: No abuse of discretion. The 168-month sentence, at the top of the Guidelines range, was entitled to a presumption of reasonableness and was adequately justified by the severity of the offense and need for deterrence.
• New Take-Away: The case fortifies Sixth Circuit precedent that sexual abuse giving rise to images possessed by the defendant is “relevant conduct” and can support the § 2G2.2(b)(5) pattern-of-activity enhancement even when the abuse was separately charged in state court.

Detailed Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Roles

1. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) – foundational test for ineffective assistance (deficient performance + prejudice).
2. Greer v. Mitchell, 264 F.3d 663 (6th Cir. 2001) – counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless issues.
3. United States v. Hill, 79 F.3d 1477 (6th Cir. 1996) – explains § 1B1.3 “relevant conduct” categories.
4. United States v. Hodge, 805 F.3d 675 (6th Cir. 2015) – prior uncharged production attempts are relevant conduct for child-porn cases; heavily relied upon for the logical relationship analysis.
5. Gardner v. United States, 122 F.4th 254 (6th Cir. 2024) – restates Strickland standard.
6. United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2007) – bifurcates procedural and substantive review.
7. United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2018) – enumerates procedural requirements for a sentence.
8. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) – abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive reasonableness.
9. United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) – presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences.

These authorities collectively supplied the doctrinal framework: Strickland and Greer for the ineffective-assistance analysis; Hill and Hodge for interpreting “relevant conduct”; and Bolds, Rayyan, Gall, and Vonner for appellate sentence review.

B. Legal Reasoning of the Sixth Circuit

1. Merits of the Enhancement.
   • Section § 2G2.2(b)(5) adds five levels if the defendant engaged in “a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor.”
   • The commentary to the Guideline states the pattern need not occur “during the course of the offense”, but the defendant argued the plain text should be confined to § 1B1.3 “relevant conduct.”
   • The court sidestepped the commentary-validity debate, holding that—even under the defendant’s narrower view—the abuse met § 1B1.3(a)(2) because it was part of the same course of conduct/common scheme: he created the videos (abuse) that he later possessed (child-pornography offense).
   • Because the same images formed part of the federal charge, the logical relationship was tighter than in Hodge. Thus, the abuse was relevant conduct, occurred numerous times, and constituted the required pattern.
2. Ineffective Assistance.
   • Since the enhancement clearly applied, withdrawing the objection could not be deficient (Greer).
   • No prejudice: the Guidelines range and ultimate sentence would have been identical.
   • The panel added a footnote acknowledging that counsel’s initial objection had sense before the PSR was revised (where double-counting was eliminated), underscoring counsel’s strategic flexibility.
3. Procedural Review.
   • Plain-error standard because no contemporaneous objection.
   • The district court expressly considered the § 3553(a) factors, especially: nature of offense, need for deterrence, protection of public, defendant’s history of abuse, and treatment prospects.
4. Substantive Review.
   • Within-Guidelines; presumption of reasonableness.
   • The court did not “elevate one factor above all others”; it balanced seriousness against mitigation.

C. Impact on Future Litigation

• Guideline Application: The opinion fortifies the Sixth Circuit’s willingness to classify sexually abusive conduct that produced the images later possessed as relevant conduct, thereby triggering § 2G2.2(b)(5). Defense counsel in similar cases face an uphill battle challenging the enhancement when self-produced images are in the possession count.
• State vs. Federal Overlap: Even when the abuse was separately prosecuted (or prosecutable) in state court, the federal court may treat it as part of the same scheme or course provided it is logically connected to the federal possession charge. The risk of “double counting” is resolved by removing criminal-history points, not by denying the offense-level increase.
• Ineffective-Assistance Strategy: Counsel should carefully consider withdrawing objections once the PSR is corrected; doing so will rarely constitute deficient performance if the objection would be futile. The case underscores that tactical retreats—after securing removal of erroneous criminal-history points—are protected from Strickland attack.
• Sentencing Explanation: The decision is another illustration that district judges in the Sixth Circuit can satisfy procedural requirements without exhaustive recitation; a focused discussion of key facts and § 3553(a) factors suffices.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Relevant Conduct (USSG § 1B1.3)

The universe of actions that “count” when calculating Guidelines ranges. For grouped offenses (like child-pornography possession), it includes other acts that share a common scheme or pattern with the offense of conviction.

Pattern-of-Activity Enhancement (§ 2G2.2(b)(5))

Adds five offense levels if the defendant committed two or more separate instances of sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor. It greatly increases sentencing exposure.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (Strickland)

To win, a defendant must (1) show counsel’s performance was below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) demonstrate a reasonable probability that the result would have been different without the errors.

Plain Error Review

An appellate court remedy for unpreserved claims. The error must be obvious, affect substantial rights, and seriously affect the fairness or integrity of judicial proceedings.

Procedural vs. Substantive Reasonableness

Procedural: Did the judge follow correct steps (calculate Guidelines, consider § 3553(a))?
Substantive: Is the length of the sentence itself reasonable, i.e., not an abuse of discretion?

Conclusion

United States v. Viramontes-Hernandez crystallizes a practical rule: when a defendant’s own sexual abuse of a child creates images later possessed, that abuse will almost invariably be “relevant conduct” and can support the § 2G2.2(b)(5) pattern-of-activity enhancement—even if state charges are pending or resolved separately. The opinion thus closes a perceived loophole for defendants seeking to avoid the five-level increase and reassures district courts that counting the abuse toward offense level while not in criminal history is proper, not double counting.

Beyond Guidelines doctrine, the case also illustrates (1) the limited scope of ineffective-assistance claims where counsel abandons meritless objections, and (2) the deference appellate courts give to well-explained, within-Guidelines sentences. Practitioners should expect this decision to be cited whenever defendants argue that sexual-abuse conduct forming the basis of a separate state offense cannot simultaneously function as relevant conduct for federal sentencing purposes.