sentence for sadism without expert testimony on the matter. Kinder cites no case in support of this argument. To the contrary, the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits have held that expert testimony is not required to justify an enhancement under 2G2.2(b)(3). United States v. Lyckman, 235 F.3d 234, 239 n. 22 (5th Cir.2000) (“One hardly requires a medical degree to ascertain that vaginal intercourse with an adult male would involve pain, both physical and emotional, for a young girl.”); United States v. Caro, 309 F.3d 1348, 1352 (11th Cir.2002) (“[W]e hold that the district court erred in its interpretation that, in order to support a sadistic conduct enhancement, the government is required to present expert medical testimony.”); see also United States v. Delmarle, 99 F.3d 80, 83 (2nd Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). We agree with those authorities, and conclude
holding that it was within the courts discretion to conclude that the subjection of a young chdd to a sexual act that would have to be painful is excessively cruel and hence is sadistic within the meaning of 2g22b3 holding that denial of amendment is within discretion of trial court holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of  1983 holding that such a decision was within the trial courts discretion holding that the complaint stated a claim under the flsa where it alleged that parties were an employer and employees within meaning of act and that the defendantemployers operation constitutes an enterprise engaged in commerce  within the meaning of  the act