who had not attained the age of 18 years.” Id. § 2G2.2 application note 1 (2003). While admitting that he believed that he was distributing child pornography to minors, Wainwright argues on appeal that his offense level could only be enhanced under § 2G2.2(b)(2)(C) if the recipients were, in fact, under the age of eighteen. Wainwright claims that there was no evidence in the record that the individuals to whom he distributed child pornography were actually minors, as opposed to individuals posing as minors. Wainwright further contends that the district court appears to have relied on the first application note to § 2G2.2 to expand the definition of “minors” to individuals who were over eighteen by including those who the defendant believed were minors. Wain 172 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The guidelines have since been amended to
holding that reasonable attorneys fees for the benefit of a minor in defending the minor against a criminal charge were necessaries holding that defendants affirmative acts of driving minor to robbery helping minor enter the building and serving as a lookout for the minor warranted sentencing enhancement holding that an enhancement for distribution of child pornography to a minor was improper because the pornographic materials at issue were transmitted to an undercover law enforcement officer who was not a minor holding that mailing child pornography to another in the expectation of receiving similar materials in return constituted distribution for purposes of  2g22b2 holding that distribution of child pornography to encourage a meeting to engage in sex was sufficient to warrant enhancement