## Facts

- Neil Scott Kramer pleaded guilty to transporting a minor in interstate commerce with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a).
- For about six months before the offense, Kramer used a Motorola Motorazr V3 cell phone to make calls and send text messages to the minor.
- At sentencing, the district court concluded the phone qualified as a “computer” under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1).
- Based on that finding, the court applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(3) for using a computer to facilitate the offense.
- The court imposed 168 months’ imprisonment and stated it would have imposed 140 months absent the enhancement.
- Kramer appealed, arguing the enhancement was improperly applied.

## Issues

1. Whether a cellular phone, used only for voice calls and text messages, can qualify as a “computer” under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1) for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(3).
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to show Kramer’s Motorola Motorazr V3 met the statutory definition of “computer.”

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the sentence.
- The court held that an ordinary cell phone can be a “computer” under § 1030(e)(1) because it is a high-speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions.
- The court concluded the record supported the finding that Kramer’s phone performed such functions through texting, storing numbers, and communicating over digital networks.
- The court found no reversible procedural error in applying the two-level enhancement under § 2G1.3(b)(3).

## Legal Principles

- U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(3) incorporates the definition of “computer” from 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1).
- Under § 1030(e)(1), a device qualifies as a “computer” if it performs logical, arithmetic, or storage functions as a high-speed data processing device; the device’s common label is not controlling.
- A cell phone’s routine functions (including texting and storing contact and message data) can satisfy § 1030(e)(1).
- Appellate review of guideline enhancement application includes de novo review of guideline interpretation and deferential review of the district court’s fact-finding.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld a § 2G1.3(b)(3) enhancement where the defendant used a standard cell phone to call and text a minor, holding that such a phone can qualify as a “computer” under § 1030(e)(1) and that the evidence supported applying the enhancement.


United States v. Kramer, 631 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2011)