of the circumstances and reverse only in exceptional cases where the trial court’s decision cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” United States v. Mason, 692 F.3d 178, 181 (2d Cir.2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The district court committed no procedural error. Dean first argues that the district court erred in applying Guidelines § 4B 1.5(b) to enhance his sentence for engaging “in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.” But a “pattern of activity” requires only “two separate. occasions” of prohibited conduct, and Dean concedes that he engaged in at least two prohibited sexual acts with the victim in this case. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b) cmt. 4(B)(i); see United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265, 284-85 (2d Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). The Guidelines do not require two separate
holding that the two instances may include the charged conduct holding that the commissions express prohibition of double counting in certain instances indicates its intent to permit double counting in other instances holding extraneous conduct subsequent to the charged offense admissible holding that the admission of rule 404b evidence is proper in a drug case where nine years elapse between the prior conduct and the conduct charged holding that when two underlying offenses are charged in an indictment for capital murder the state need only prove one of the two offenses to support the conviction