How the disputed language of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2A3 (sexual-abuse offenses) should be construed

The other side of the split

Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.

• On the other sideMitchell

  “On appeal, Mitchell argued that the sentence enhancement pursuant to § 2A3.2(b)(2)(B) did not apply to him because (1) the subsection could not be applied in cases of attempt, and (2) the sentence enhancement could not apply in the case of a sting operation.” — United States v. Chriswell, acknowledging the split

• On the other side · Eleventh CircuitRoot

  “Although the court acknowledged the conflicting result reached by the Eleventh Circuit in Root, as well as the fact that its outcome in Mitchell would create a circuit split, it found the Root court’s evaluation of the language in § 2A3.2(b)(2)(B) to be unfaithful to the text, arguing that the Root court’s holding required a reading of the language of the Guidelines in the present rather than the past tense.” — United States v. Chriswell, acknowledging the split