PLAINTIFF 21 i Case Document 66 Filed O4IOQI2007 PageSof 8 1H, wizlating the Offense Level Us;th More Than (One Minor Victim The Defendant also objects to the Probation Of?cer?s consideration of more than one minor . victim when calculating the De?t?ermdant?s combined offense level. Bet-ore determining the Defendant?s offense level for sexual exploitation of a minor, the Probation Officer described the Defendant?s relevant conduct in the pro-sentence report. That report detailed numemus episodes involving inappropriate behavior with fourmincr Victims, 13.0., K.C., M.G., and QC. (See generally ?ll?ll 5?3 5). With respect to K.C., the report notes that the Defendant sexually abused her on numeious occasions. (see, ?egg? 23?26). The report also details sexual encomters between the Defendant and C., amines gymnastics student under the Defendant?s supervision, encounters when BC. was in ?fth or sixth grade. (lien 27?30). The report also detailed sexually?explicit videos that the Defendant involvingM.G., a twelvemyearuold student at the Detecdant?s gmnoastios academy, videos tliat were ultimately dist?buted the Defendant to'cther individuals over the intemet. (W 31-33, In short, the report clearly demonstrates that the relevant conduct. here involved three other minor. victims. The Defendant (lees not object to the inclusioo of these other victims as ?relevant conduct.? Instead, Defendant. complains that the other victims should not be iocluded in calculating the Defendant?s offense level because they were cot referenced in the count of conviction. And, Defendant argues that because offenses falling m1derU.S.S.G. ?2G2.l are speci?cally eXcliidecl ??om groupitig under U.S.S.G. 3131.2, he insists that there should have been no grouping of'the minor Victims for purposes of determining the Defendant?s offense level. Defendant?s argument misconstrues the Probation Of?ce?s application of the Guidelines. As the Probation Of?cer noted in responding to Defendant?s objection, there was no ?grouping? - .- ?m