admissions, which are contrary to his interests, bear sufficient indicia of reliability. The district court
noted as much, stating that “a person who did not commit those types of offenses would not make
those sorts of statements, or a person who did not engage in that type of conduct would not make
those types of statements that such conduct was engaged in, and, therefore, the court accepts the
statements.” (Sentencing Tr. 54.) Accordingly, we conclude that the district court’s finding that the
five-level enhancement based on the pattern-of-abuse provision was not clearly erroneous.
Defendant next contends that the district court improperly denied Defendant a two-level
reduction based on his lack of intent to distribute the pornographic material pursuant to USSG §
2G2.2(b)(1). Specifically, Defendant argues that there were no “reliable indicia that [he] intended
to distribute materials of child pornography,” and that the district court’s failure to grant the two-
level reduction “resulted in an additional improper enhancement of [his] advisory sentencing
guidelines range.” (Appellant’s Br. 15.)
USSG § 2G2.2(b)(1) states that if the defendant has a base level of 22, “the defendant’s
conduct was limited to the receipt or solicitation of material involving the sexual exploitation of a
minor,” and “the defendant did not intend to traffic in, or distribute, such material, decrease [the
defendant’s offense level] by 2 levels.” “Distribution” is defined as “any act, including possession
with intent to distribute, production, transmission, advertisement, and transportation, related to the
transfer of material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor.” USSG § 2G2.2 cmt. n.1.
Distribution includes “posting material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor on a website for
public viewing but does not include the mere solicitation of such material by a defendant.” Id.