of 63 to 78 months. Before discussing the variance, we first address the government’s argument that the district court’s calculation of the advisory range was too low and that Gna-vi’s sentence therefore represents only a modest variance from the correct guidelines range. The government contends first that Gnavi attempted to receive seven videos and thus should have been assessed a four-level enhancement. The government argues that Gnavi attempted to receive 525 images because he expressed interest in seven videos in his November letter. What Gnavi was asking for in that letter, however, was a “still phot [sic] or something.” His expression of interest in the videos did not rise to the level of an attempt to obtain them. Cf. United States v. Brown, 862 F.2d 1033, 1038 (3d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Gnavi did, however, request “sample videos/or
holding that because an ftc letter was at most an interpretation of a rule rather than a substantive amendment  we thus lack jurisdiction over the petition for review recognizing that a letter in which a defendant states that he is interested in three child pornographic videos might be considered an inquiry rather than an order holding that a signed but unsworn letter which is not otherwise authenticated is hearsay and should not be considered as evidence in opposition to a motion for summary judgment holding that when the united states is a named party participates in the general action and is or may be interested in the outcome of an appeal even though it is not a party to the appeal it is a party for purposes of frap 4a holding that the receipt of a righttosue letter in a title vii claim is a condition precedent rather than a jurisdictional prerequisite