a digital video on his computer. Id. In the video, minor children — a brother and a sister — engaged in sexual intercourse with one another. Id. Defendant not only received and solicited child pornography, he used it to groom and sexually abuse a child. Id. Defendant intended to traffic in, or distribute material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor. USSG § 2G2.2(b)(l). “Distribution” is “any act, including possession with intent to distribute, production, advertisement, and transportation, related to the transfer of material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor.” Id. at cmt. (n. 1); United States v. Clawson, 408 F.3d 556, 558 n. 1 (8th Cir.), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Aug. 15, 2005). Defendant clearly intended to distribute child pornography, i. (4th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the court held Defendant was not
holding that the district court did not err in using a previous conviction for gross sexual imposition to enhance a sentence for receiving child pornography 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 distribution of child pornography to encourage a meeting to engage in sex was sufficient to warrant enhancement holding that trading of child pornography is distribution for purposes of  2g22b2 holding that mailing child pornography to another in the expectation of receiving similar materials in return constituted distribution for purposes of  2g22b2