1. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. U.S. v. LEBOVITZ 401 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2005) Case Brief

2. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. U.S. v. LEBOVITZ PURPOSE: Lebovitz is a criminal case concerning the calculation of a sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

3. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. U.S. v. LEBOVITZ CAUSE OF ACTION: Attempted criminal sexual abuse and possession of child pornography.

4. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. U.S. v. LEBOVITZ FACTS: On the Internet, Lebovitz corresponded with a police officer posing as a stepfather of three girls. He flew from Chicago to Birmingham for sex with an eleven-year-old and gave the “stepfather” an agreed sum. A search of his home yielded child pornography. He pleaded guilty to attempted criminal sexual abuse and possessing 420 pieces of child pornography. The probation officer’s report recommended a sentence for attempted sexual abuse, with enhancements for the age of the victim, the children in the pornography, and the use of a computer to get child pornography.

5. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. U.S. v. LEBOVITZ ISSUE: Whether the sentencing guidelines were correctly applied.

6. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. U.S. v. LEBOVITZ HOLDING: The guideline for attempted criminal sexual abuse was correctly applied and the enhancements did not constitute impermissible double counting.

7. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. U.S. v. LEBOVITZ REASONING: Even though the young girl was fictional, he could be convicted of traveling interstate to have sex with a minor because of his intent. Not impermissible double counting to enhance his sentence for possessing child pornography and for using a computer to obtain child pornography and to find a child to sexually abuse because they were directed toward two different harms. And not double counting to enhance his sentence for possessing over ten images of child pornography AND for over 300 images because the intent of Congress was a stiffer penalty for possessing greater quantity.