context: 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).
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 309 F.3d 1348, 1352
citation_a.parenthetical: "[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."
citation_a.sentence: 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 that “it was within the court’s 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 2G2.2(b)(3)”). We agree with those authorities, and conclude that expert testimony was not required.
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 99 F.3d 80, 83
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that "it was within the court's 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 2G2.2(b
citation_b.sentence: 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 that “it was within the court’s 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 2G2.2(b)(3)”). We agree with those authorities, and conclude that expert testimony was not required.