context: . In addition, on plain error review, the Ninth Circuit has noted, without deciding, that the plain language of Subsection 3(B) "would seemingly apply to the facts of this case because it contemplates using a computer to entice or solicit a third party -- the 'person'-- to engage in prohibited sexual conduct with the minor" while application note 4 "indicates, ... that SS 2G1.3(b)(3) would not apply to the facts of this case because the computer was not used to communicate directly with the minor or her custodian."
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 390 Fed.Appx. 849, 852
citation_a.parenthetical: acknowledging that a "persuasive case has been made that the commentary [of application note 4] is at odds with the plain language of the [Subsection 3(B
citation_a.sentence: United States v. Jackson, 697 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir.2012) (declining to decide whether the plain language is inconsistent with the application note and upholding the enhancement on the ground that the district court did not commit plain error); see also United States v. Madkins, 390 Fed.Appx. 849, 852 (11th Cir.2010) (acknowledging that a "persuasive case has been made that the commentary [of application note 4] is at odds with the plain language of the [Subsection 3(B) ] enhancement” but declining to reach the issue on plain error review).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 697 F.3d 1141, 1145
citation_b.parenthetical: declining to decide whether the plain language is inconsistent with the application note and upholding the enhancement on the ground that the district court did not commit plain error
citation_b.sentence: United States v. Jackson, 697 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir.2012) (declining to decide whether the plain language is inconsistent with the application note and upholding the enhancement on the ground that the district court did not commit plain error); see also United States v. Madkins, 390 Fed.Appx. 849, 852 (11th Cir.2010) (acknowledging that a "persuasive case has been made that the commentary [of application note 4] is at odds with the plain language of the [Subsection 3(B) ] enhancement” but declining to reach the issue on plain error review).