We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Sundsmo argues that the district court erred by imposing a five-level
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5) because his 1996 convictions for
sexually abusing a minor do not qualify as relevant conduct or expanded relevant
conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a). We review de novo, United States v. Garner,
490 F.3d 739, 742 (9th Cir. 2007), and conclude that the enhancement under
section 2G2.2(b)(5) was properly imposed. See U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5) & cmt.
n.1; U.S.S.G. Manual app. C., amend. 537 (1996) (“pattern of activity”
enhancement applies to “past sexual abuse or exploitation unrelated to the offense
of conviction” and, thus, reaches more “broad[ly] than the scope of relevant
conduct typically considered under §1B1.3”); Garner, 490 F.3d at 743 (“The plain
language of the Commentary to § 2G2.2 eliminates the need for any temporal or
factual nexus between the offense of conviction and any prior act of sexual abuse
or exploitation; the provision obviously intends to cast a wide net to draw in any
conceivable history of sexual abuse or exploitation of children.”). Sundsmo’s
various arguments for a narrower interpretation of section 2G2.2(b)(5) are