US v. Ashlee Liebert, No. 13-4493 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4493 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ASHLEE C. LIEBERT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, Chief District Judge. (3:12-cr-00096-1) Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: February 7, 2014 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne D. Inge, LAW OFFICE for Appellant. R. Booth William B. King, II, Charleston, West Virginia, OF WAYNE D. INGE, Roanoke, Virginia, Goodwin, II, United States Attorney, Assistant United States Attorney, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ashlee C. Liebert pled guilty to knowingly traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with a minor, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f)(1) (2012), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) (2012). On appeal, Liebert challenges his 144-month sentence alleging that the district court erroneously applied the cross-reference under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) § 2G1.3(c)(1) (2012). For the reasons that follow, we affirm. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we review a sentence for reasonableness, whether inside or outside the Guidelines range, and we apply a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard. (2007). no We first must ensure that the district court committed significant sentence Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 52 is procedural error. procedurally Id. at 51. reasonable, do we Only if evaluate the the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, again using an abuse of discretion standard of review. Id.; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). court s application of the When considering a district Sentencing Guidelines, we review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Mehta, 594 F.3d 277, 281 (4th Cir. 2010). Section provides that § 2G1.3(c)(1) 2G2.1 of applies 2 by the Sentencing cross-reference Guidelines [i]f the offense involved causing, transporting, permitting, or offering or seeking by notice or advertisement, a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of 2G1.3(c)(l) such is conduct. to be USSG construed § 2G1.3(c)(1). broadly. USSG Section § 2G1.3, comment. (n.5). We find no error in the district court s application of the cross-reference and rely on its finding that Liebert specifically sought qualifying images from his twelve-year-old victim via possession. texting, ten court s reference. which were found in Liebert s Indeed, Liebert, through counsel, admitted as much to the district court. district of Thus, we find no clear error in the factual findings Mehta, 594 F.3d at 281. supporting the cross- Accordingly, Liebert s sole claim on appeal is without merit, and we affirm his sentence. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
