USA v. Puentes

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	No. CR 23-1770 JB
ADRIAN PUENTES,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant’s Objections to the Presentence
Investigative Report, filed December 1, 2025 (Doc. 66)(“Objections”). The sentencing is
scheduled for January 22, 2026. The primary issues are: (i) whether the United States Probation
Office’s Presentence Investigation Report, filed September 22, 2025 (Doc. 60)(“PSR”) correctly
applies an 8-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(5) for Count 2 -- Coercion and
Enticement of a Minor, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) -- because subsection (a)(3) applies, and the offense
involves a minor who had not attained the age of 12 years; (ii) whether the PSR correctly applies
a cross-reference at the United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2G1.3(c)(1) for Count 1 -- Coercion
and Enticement of a Minor, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) -- because Defendant Adrian Puentes causes a
minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of
such conduct; (iii) whether the PSR correctly applies a 2-level enhancement under U.S.S.G §
2G2.1(b)(2)(A) for Count 1, because the offense involves the commission of a sexual act or sexual
contact; (iv) whether the PSR correctly applies a 2-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. §
2G2.1(b)(3) for Count 1, because Puentes knowingly engages in the distribution of child
pornography; (v) whether the Court should sustain Puentes’ Objection regarding the PSR ¶ 13, at
4, because the PSR suggests that Puentes posts “sexually explicit photos” of Jane Doe 1 online;
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 26

- 2 -
(vi) whether the Court should sustain Puentes’ Objection regarding the PSR ¶ 14, at 4, because the
fact that there is material on Jane Doe 1’s telephone that is “sexual in nature” does not mean that
Puentes causes that material to be produced or that he ever receives those materials; and (vii)
whether the Court should sustain Puentes’ Objections regarding the PSR ¶ 23, at 7, because Jane
Doe 2 is not eleven years old at the time that the conversations between Puentes and Jane Doe 2
begin. The Court: (i) sustains Puentes’ Objection to the 8-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. §
2G1.3(b)(5) for Count 2, because the offense does not involve a minor who had not obtained the
age of 12 years; (ii) overrules Puentes’ Objection to the cross-reference at U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(c)(1),
because Puentes causes Jane Doe 1 to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of
producing a visual depiction of such conduct; (iii) overrules Puentes’ Objection to the 2-level
enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A) as to Count 1, because the offense involved
the commission of a sexual act or sexual contact; (iv) sustains Puentes’ Objection to the 2-level
enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(3) as to Count 1 because Puentes does not
knowingly engage in the distribution of child pornography; (v) sustains Puentes’ Objection to the
PSR ¶ 13, at 4, because Puentes does not post sexually explicit photos of Jane Doe 1 online; (vi)
overrules Puentes’ Objection to the PSR ¶ 14, at 4, because Puentes does not contest the factual
accuracy of these statements; and (vii) sustains Puentes’ Objection regarding the PSR ¶ 23, at 7,
because Jane Doe 2 is twelve years old at the time that the conversations between Puentes and Jane
Doe 2 begin.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Puentes does not object to the PSR facts except those in ¶¶ 13, 14, 23, at 4, 7. 	See
Objections at 7-8. Those undisputed facts are the Court’s findings of fact. See Fed. R. Crim. P.
32(i)(3)(A) (“[The court] may accept any undisputed portion of the presentence report as a finding
of fact.”). Regarding PSR ¶¶ 13, 23, at 4, 7, the Court sustains Puentes’ objection and incorporates
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 26

- 3 -
his proposed finding of fact as the Court’s. Regarding PSR ¶ 14, at 4, the Court concludes that the
United States shows -- by a preponderance of the evidence -- that the allegations in those
paragraphs are true. The Court therefore makes the allegations in PSR ¶ 14, at 4, the Court’s
findings of fact.
When resolving factual Objections, the Court must determine whether the United States
meets its burden of proving disputed facts by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States
v. Olsen, 519 F.3d 1096, 1105 (10th Cir. 2008). In evaluating whether the United States has met
its burden, “sentencing courts may consider hearsay evidence provided that the evidence has
sufficient indicia of reliability.” United States v. Dazey, 403 F.3d 1147, 1177 n.7 (10th Cir. 2005).
See U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3.1 	“This is not a high standard, for it requires only ‘minimal indicia of
1 Although a district court “resolving any dispute concerning a factor important to the
sentencing determination . . . may consider relevant information without regard to its admissibility
under the rules of evidence applicable at trial, provided that the information has sufficient indicia
of reliability to support its probable accuracy,” U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3, the Federal Rules of Evidence
can be relevant to fact-finding at sentencing. In United States v. Calvert-Cata, No. CR 16-4566
JB, 2022 WL 14813473, at *12 (D.N.M. October 26, 2022)(Browning, J.), aff’d, No. 23-2000,
2024 WL 33901 (10th Cir. January 3, 2024), the Court holds, in a revocation context, that it may
consider and rely upon out-of-court statements if those statements are admissible under the Federal
Rules of Evidence and under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)(“Crawford”), without
evaluating separately those statements’ reliability. 	See United States v. Calvert-Cata, 2022 WL
14813473, at *12. The Court reasons that, “because evidentiary standards for revocation hearings
are supposed to be more inclusive and flexible than trials,” it “makes no sense to require the United
States to” clear hurdles that are not there at trial. Calvert-Cata, 2022 WL 14813473, at *12.
Here, the Court concludes that the same principles apply and that, in a sentencing context,
it may consider and rely upon out-of-court statements that are admissible under the Federal Rules
of Evidence without evaluating separately those statements’ reliability. Like revocation hearings,
sentencing hearings are supposed to have more inclusive and flexible evidentiary standards than
trials. For example, at sentencing, district courts use a preponderance of the evidence standard to
resolve factual disputes and apply sentencing enhancements. See United States v. Olsen, 519 F.3d
1096, 1105 (10th Cir. 2008); United States v. Magallanez, 408 F.3d 672, 685 (10th Cir. 2005).
Similarly, a district court may “revoke supervised release after concluding that the defendant
violated a condition of probation by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Hykes,
653 F. Supp. 3d 913, 926 (D.N.M. 2022)(Browning, J.)(citing 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)). 	A district
court may also consider, for both sentencing and revocation, out-of-court statements that are not
admissible at trial. See U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3; Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(C). Moreover, the standard
for considering an out-of-court statement at sentencing is higher than the standard for considering
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 3 of 26

- 4 -
reliability.’” United States v. Ayon, 226 F. App’x 834, 840 (10th Cir. 2007)(unpublished)(quoting
United States v. Fennell, 65 F.3d 812, 813 (10th Cir. 1995)).
1. 	On January 13, 2022, fifteen-year-old Jane Doe 1, born in 2006, reports that she is
the victim of online exploitation that takes place over a three year span, starting in April, 2019,
when she is about twelve-years old. See PSR ¶ 12, at 4.
2. 	While in seventh or eighth grade, Jane Doe 1 sends a nude image to a female friend
who later uses the image online while pretending to be Jane Doe 1. See PSR ¶ 12, at 4.
3. 	Puentes subsequently contacts Jane Doe 1, and Puentes threatens to share more
images of Jane Doe 1 online if she does not send him more nude pictures. See PSR ¶ 12, at 4.
an out-of-court statement at revocation. At sentencing, a district court need only determine that
the statement has “sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy.” 	U.S.S.G. §
6A1.3. See United States v. Dazey, 403 F.3d 1147, 1177 n.7 (10th Cir. 2005). At revocation, a
district court must weigh the statement’s reliability and the defendant’s interest in cross-
examination against the United States’ explanation for not presenting a witness. See United States
v. Jones, 818 F.3d 1091, 1099-1100 (10th Cir. 2016); United States v. Murphy, 769 F. App’x 631,
633-34 (10th Cir. 2019). Given that it is easier to consider an inadmissible out-of-court statement
at sentencing, it makes sense to apply the Court’s reasoning in United States v. Calvert-Cata to
sentencing; if the Court can consider admissible out-of-court statements at revocation without
evaluating separately whether those statements are reliable, then the Court can do the same at
sentencing, where the evidentiary hurdle is lower.
United States v. Murphy is an unpublished opinion, but the Court can rely on an
unpublished United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit opinion to the extent its reasoned
analysis is persuasive in the case before it. See 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A) (“Unpublished decisions are
not precedential, but may be cited for their persuasive value.”). The Tenth Circuit states:
In this circuit, unpublished orders are not binding precedent, . . . and we
have generally determined that citation to unpublished opinions is not favored.
However, if an unpublished opinion or order and judgment has persuasive value
with respect to a material issue in a case and would assist the court in its disposition,
we allow a citation to that decision.
United States v. Austin, 426 F.3d 1266, 1274 (10th Cir. 2005). The Court concludes that United
States v. Murphy, and United States v. Ayon, 226 F. App’x 834 (10th Cir. 2007), have persuasive
value with respect to a material issue, and will assist the Court in its disposition of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order.
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 4 of 26

- 5 -
4. 	Communicating with Jane Doe 1 over Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat, Puentes
orders Jane Doe 1 to provide him with sexually explicit photographs and videos of herself under
threat that he will post the explicit material online for Jane Doe 1’s social media followers to see.
See PSR ¶ 12, at 4.
5. 	During a forensic interview that takes places on March 7, 2023, Jane Doe 1 clarifies
that Puentes is aware of her age, twelve or thirteen, and that Puentes states that he does not care
about her age and says that “her ass was fat.” PSR ¶ 19, at 5.
6. 	These threats continue over a span of three years, during which time Puentes uses
multiple social media accounts created across multiple social media platforms to communicate
with and receive child pornography from Jane Doe 1. See PSR ¶ 13, at 4.
7. 	Whenever Jane Doe 1 blocks the social media accounts, Puentes creates new
accounts and continues to harass her. See PSR ¶ 13, at 4.
8. 	Throughout the course of the abuse, Puentes misrepresents his age to Jane Doe 1,
representing that he is seventeen or eighteen. See PSR ¶ 16, at 5.
9. 	On January 18, 2022, investigators meet with Jane Doe 1 and receive consent to
search her electronic devices. See PSR ¶ 14, at 4.
10. 	Law enforcement conduct an extraction of Jane Doe 1’s iPhone and observe dozens
of nude images and videos of Jane Doe 1 exposing her genitals. See PSR ¶ 14, at 4.
11. 	Some of the files show Jane Doe 1 fully naked engaging in sexual intercourse, bent
over with her vagina exposed, and in the shower with her vagina partially exposed. See PSR ¶ 14,
at 4.
12. 	The files appear sexual in nature, and focus on Jane Doe 1’s genitals and breasts.
See PSR ¶ 14, at 4.
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 5 of 26

- 6 -
13. 	Jane Doe 1 reaches out to law enforcement again on January 31, 2022, stating that
her friends have reported a Snapchat account that is posting more nude photographs of her on
Snapchat. See PSR ¶ 15, at 4.
14. 	The police report from the incident states that the Snapchat material reported to be
child sexual abuse material does not show Jane Doe 1 “exposing her genitals.” 	State of New
Mexico Uniform Incident Report, at 3, filed January 21, 2026 (Doc. 79).
15. 	The account posting the photographs is the same account that Puentes previously
uses to threaten Jane Doe 1 and demand nude photographs from her. See PSR ¶ 15, at 4.
16. 	Jane Doe 1 reports to law enforcement that Puentes continues to harass her using
different accounts and/or posting her images/videos online on February 10, 2022, February 19,
2022, March 5, 2022, March 26, 2022, and June 4, 2022. See PSR ¶ 14, at 4.
17. 	Jane Doe 1 does not always use the word “nude” to refer to completely naked
photographs, but sometimes will use the word to refer to photographs in her underwear. 	See
Forensic Interview of Jane Doe 1, dated March 7, 2023, at 10:17:01-10:17:40.
18. 	On February 22, 2023, investigators review Instagram records for Puentes’ account
and Jane Doe 1’s account. See PSR ¶ 17, at 5.
19. 	Instagram records show conversations between Puentes and Jane Doe 1. See PSR
¶ 17, at 5.
20. 	Investigators view numerous conversations that are sexual in nature; for example,
in one conversation, Jane Doe 1 sends Puentes an image depicting buttocks wearing pink
underwear with her vagina exposed. See PSR ¶ 17, at 5.
21. 	In another conversation, Puentes directs Jane Doe 1 to create and send images of
herself in real time, and in response to one attachment sent by Jane Doe 1 Puentes states: “Fasho
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 6 of 26

- 7 -
been naughty, ya lil pussy playing peek a boo with me.” See Instagram Messages between Jane
Doe 1 and Puentes, dated July 31, 2021, filed December 22, 2025 (Doc. 69, at 10-13).
22. 	In another conversation, Puentes sends Jane Doe 1 a link to “BombBooty.pics.”
PSR ¶ 17, at 5.
23. 	Jane Doe 1 responds, asking Puentes why he posted her pictures and is angry that
he posted her pictures. See PSR ¶ 17, at 5.
24. 	Puentes then requests that Jane Doe 1 participate in a video chat with him until he
ejaculates, and there are several indications of video calls between Puentes and Jane Doe 1. See
PSR ¶ 17, at 5.
25. 	After reviewing the Instagram records, law enforcement determines that Puentes
and Jane Doe 1 have chatted extensively, and that Jane Doe 1 sends over approximately 100
attachments -- presumed to be photos -- to Puentes. See PSR ¶ 17, at 5.
26. 	During her March 7, 2023, forensic interview, Jane Doe 1 identifies several
photographs that law enforcement show her as photographs of herself, and reiterates that Puentes
constantly asks for more pictures and continues posting her pictures online. See PSR ¶ 19, at 5.
27. 	Jane Doe 1 also discloses that Puentes would demand she create photographs for
him, rather than send images she had saved. See Forensic Interview of Jane Doe 1, at 10:23:12,
filed December 22, 2025 (Doc. 70).
28. 	During the same interview, Jane Doe 1 further discloses that she sent Puentes a
photograph of her rubbing her clitoris in response to Puentes’ request for pictures of her playing
with herself. See Forensic Interview of Jane Doe 1 at 10:23:40-10:25:00.
29. 	On March 31, 2023, law enforcement execute a search warrant at Puentes’
residence. See PSR ¶ 20, at 6.
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 7 of 26

- 8 -
30. 	During the search, law enforcement seizes three telephones which Puentes admits
are his. See PSR ¶ 20, at 6.
31. 	While searching one telephone, investigators locate child pornography of Jane Doe
1, and also locate evidence of a second victim, Jane Doe 2, from whom Puentes is also requesting
sexually explicit material. See PSR ¶ 20, at 6.
32. 	While law enforcement executes the search warrant, investigators interview
Puentes. See PSR ¶ 21, at 6.
33. 	During the interview, Puentes admits to using several different social media
accounts, which he provides to law enforcement. See PSR ¶ 21, at 6.
34. 	Puentes also admits to threatening underage females in the past to send him sexually
explicit material. See PSR ¶ 21, at 6.
35. 	When asked if he posts females’ nude photographs on social media, Puentes
responds “I might have done that actually, if you don’t send me more.” PSR ¶ 21, at 6.
36. 	In response to the question of how many girls he has posted their nude photographs
on social media, Puentes responds: “I wouldn’t say more than two or three.” PSR ¶ 21, at 6.
37. 	Law enforcement also asks Puentes if he knows the girls are underage, and he
responds “Perhaps.” See PSR ¶ 21, at 6.
38. 	Investigators ask whether Puentes threatens Jane Doe 1, and Puentes admits that he
has threatened her. See PSR ¶ 21, at 6.
39. 	Following the search at Puentes’ residence, law enforcement obtain and execute
search warrants on social media accounts, including a Snapchat account. See PSR ¶ 23, at 7.
40. 	In reviewing the Snapchat records, law enforcement observe photos of a girl
exposing her breasts, who law enforcement subsequently identifies as Jane Doe 2 -- birth year
2009. See PSR ¶ 23, at 7.
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 8 of 26

- 9 -
41. 	The 	chats 	include 	lengthy 	sexual 	conversations 	between 	Puentes, 	who 	is
approximately twenty-one years old at the time of the chats, and Jane Doe 2, who is approximately
twelve years old at the time of the chats. See PSR ¶ 23, at 7.
42. 	During one conversation, Puentes asks Jane Doe 2 for more nude photographs. See
PSR ¶ 23, at 7.
43. 	During several other conversations, Puentes and Jane Doe 2 discuss Jane Doe 2
sneaking out of her house, and meeting Puentes at his house or at a public park to have sex. See
PSR ¶ 24, at 7.
44. 	During a forensic interview with Jane Doe 2 that takes place on June 12, 2023, Jane
Doe 2 reports that she meets Puentes in a park multiple times, during which time they kiss and
smoke marijuana, and she performs oral sex on Puentes approximately four times. See PSR ¶ 26,
at 7.
45. 	Jane Doe 2 states that she is approximately thirteen years old when she performs
oral sex on Puentes. See PSR ¶ 26, at 7.
46. 	Puentes also uses his telephone to send money to Jane Doe 2 via CashApp in
exchange for her willingness to meet with him. See PSR ¶ 24, at 7.
47. 	Additional conversations between Puentes and Jane Doe 2 consist of Puentes
discussing the sexual things he wants to do with Jane Doe 2, including oral and vaginal sex, as
well as Puentes continuing to ask Jane Doe 2 for nude photos. See PSR ¶ 24, at 7.
48. 	During the conversations between Puentes and Jane Doe 2, Puentes misrepresents
his age to Jane Doe 2, representing that he is fifteen years old during a conversation on October
19, 2021, in response to Jane Doe 2’s disclosure that she is thirteen years old. See PSR ¶ 24, at 7.
49. 	Records indicate that Puentes and Jane Doe 2 talk extensively for approximately
two years. See PSR ¶ 24, at 7.
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 9 of 26

- 10 -
50. 	During her forensic interview on June 12, 2023, Jane Doe 2 states that she felt
Puentes manipulates her to send the pictures, and that he gets mad at her if she did not send him
pictures. See PSR ¶ 26, at 8.
51. 	Jane Doe 2 states that she sent Puentes photographs of her breasts and her butt, but
never of her vagina, and that Puentes sends her pictures of his penis. See PSR ¶ 26, at 8.
52. 	Jane Doe 2 estimates that she sent photographs to Puentes ten times. See PSR ¶ 26,
at 8.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 6, 2023, the Grand Jury files a Superseding Indictment is filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, charging the defendant as follows:
Count 1: Adrian Puentes with Coercion and Enticement of a Minor. The
offense occurred from on or about June 29, 2021 and continued to on or about
December 1, 2021, in Bernalillo County and elsewhere.
Count 2: Adrian Puentes with Coercion and Enticement of a Minor. The
offense occurred from on or about October 19, 2021 and continued to on or about
March 23, 2023, in Bernalillo County and elsewhere.
PSR ¶ 1, at 3. 	On July 25, 2025, Puentes pleads guilty to Counts 1 and 2 of the two-count
Indictment. See PSR ¶ 2, at 3. 	Both Count 1 and Count 2 charge Coercion and Enticement of a
Minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). See PSR ¶ 2, at 3.
On January 28, 2025, the United States Parole Office (“USPO”) files the PSR, which
applies a total offense level of 40 for Count 1 and 46 for Count 2, treated as 43 pursuant to Chapter
5, Part A (comment n.2) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”). See PSR at 9,
11. On December 1, 2025, Puentes files the Objections, which make seven Objections to the PSR.
See Objections at 2, 8. 	Puentes’ first Objection is that the PSR erroneously applies an 8-point
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(5) for Count 2. See Objections at 2. Section 2G1.3(b)(5)
provides for an 8-level enhancement if subsection (a)(3) or (a)(4) applies, and the offense involves
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 10 of 26

- 11 -
a minor who is not yet the age of twelve years. See U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(5). Puentes does not
dispute that subsection (a)(3) applies, but disputes the conclusion that Jane Doe 2 is under the age
of twelve at the time of the offense. See Objections at 2. Puentes argues that, according to the
chat messages between him and Jane Doe 2 that the United States provides, the initial introduction
between the two is on October 19, 2021. See Objections at 2. Puentes observes that Jane Doe 2’s
date of birth is June, 2009, and, as a result, she attains the age of twelve years before the offense’s
commission. See Objections at 2. Puentes’ second Objection is that the PSR erroneously cross-
references U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1 for Count 1. 	See Objections at 3. 	Section 2G2.1 applies “[i]f the
offense involved causing, transporting or offering or seeking by notice or advertisement, a minor
to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such
conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(c)(1). Puentes argues first that the United States does not prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the attachments which Jane Doe 1 sends to Puentes, the
majority of which law enforcement cannot access, involve “sexually explicit conduct,” as §
2256(c) defines the term. See Objections, at 3. Acknowledging that one of the images that the
United States is able to access can fall within the definition of sexually explicit conduct, Puentes
also argues that he does not “cause” the production of that particular photo. Objections at 4.
Puentes’ third Objection is that, if the Court overrules Puentes Objection to the cross-reference to
§ 2G2.1 for Count 1, the PSR erroneously applies a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. §
2G2.1(b)(2)(A) as to Count 1. 	See Objections at 5. 	Puentes objects to the application of §
2G2.1(b)(2)(A), because he never has any physical contact at all with Jane Doe 1 as the definition
of sexual act or sexual contact under § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A) requires, despite Puentes’ admission in his
Plea Agreement that “‘he agrees that his conduct caused Jane Doe 1 to engage in sexual activity.’”
Objections at 6 (quoting PSR ¶ 22 at 6). Puentes’ fourth Objection is that the PSR erroneously
applies a 2-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(3) as to Count 1, which applies if the
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 11 of 26

- 12 -
defendant knowingly engages in distribution of child pornography. See Objections at 6. Puentes
argues that the United States cannot demonstrate that he knowingly engages in distribution of child
pornography, because law enforcement cannot obtain any of the photographs Puentes allegedly
posts to or distributes on social media, and Jane Doe 1 does not provide enough description of the
photographs that Puentes posts to constitute child pornography. See Objections at 7. Puentes’ fifth
Objection is that PSR ¶ 13, at 4, suggests incorrectly that he posts sexually explicit photographs
of Jane Doe 1 online. See Objections at 7. Puentes argues that law enforcement is never able to
obtain images that are reported to be posted publicly online. See Objections at 7. Puentes also
objects to the statement that he uses TikTok to communicate with Jane Doe 1. See Objections at
8. Puentes’ sixth Objection is that he does not cause the production of or receive the sexual-in-
nature materials that law enforcement discovers on Jane Doe 1’s telephone as PSR ¶ 14, at 4,
describes. 	See Objections at 8. 	Puentes’ seventh and final Objection is that PSR ¶ 23, at 7,
incorrectly states that Jane Doe 2 is eleven years old at the time of the sexual conversations
between Puentes and Jane Doe 2. See Objections, at 8.
On December 22, 2025, the United States files its Response. The United States first agrees
with Puentes that the 8-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(5) as to Count 2 does not
apply, because Jane Doe 2 is twelve years old when Puentes first begins talking to her. 	See
Response at 1. In response to Puentes’ second Objection to the application of the cross-reference
at U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(c)(1) for Count 1, where Puentes argues he never causes Jane Doe 1 to produce
child pornography, the United States contends that this argument is contrary to Puentes’ admissions
in his plea agreement:
I used the social media platform Instagram to coerce Jane Doe 1 over the internet
to send me sexually explicit photographs. . . . I agree my conduct caused Jane Doe
1 to engage in sexual activity for which any person could be charged with a criminal
offense, as that phrase is defined under federal law.
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 12 of 26

- 13 -
Response at 2 (quoting Plea Agreement ¶ 9, at 5, filed July 25, 2025 (Doc. 52)). The United States
argues that the fact that Puentes admits to causing Jane Doe 1 to engage in sexual activity and then
coercing her into sending that material means that Puentes therefore admits to causing Jane Doe 1
to produce child pornography. 	See Response at 2. 	The United States also points to the chat
messages between Puentes and Jane Doe 1 in which “he instructs her on how precisely to pose for
him and create his child pornography” as support for the conclusion that Puentes causes Jane Doe
1 to produce child pornography. Response at 2. In response to Puentes’ third Objection to the 2-
level enhancement for U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A) for Count 1, where Puentes argues that causing
Jane Doe 1 to engage in sexual activity -- masturbation at his request -- does not constitute “sexual
contact” as 18 U.S.C. § 2246(3) defines the term, because he does not make physical contact with
Jane Doe 1, the United States argues that this is interpretation is an incorrect construction of
“sexual contact” under § 2246(3). Response at 17. Section 2246(3) defines sexual contact as “the
intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia . . . of any person with
an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.”
18 U.S.C. § 2246(3). 	The United States draws on the phrase “any person” to argue that the
“touching does not have to be by a defendant, but rather, by any person, which would include when
a victim touches themselves at the behest and direction of a defendant.” 	Response at 17. 	The
United States concludes that Puentes’ third Objection should be overruled, because Puentes causes
Jane Doe 1 to engage in sexual contact by virtue of coercing Jane Doe 1 to masturbate for him.
See Response at 18. Next, the United States addresses Puentes’ fourth Objection, to the two-level
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(3) as to Count 1 for knowing distribution of child
pornography, and the United States references chats between Puentes and Jane Doe 1 which the
United States contend demonstrates that Puentes did knowingly distributes child pornography. See
Response at 18. 	In response to Puentes’ fifth Objection to PSR ¶ 13, at 4, the United States
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 13 of 26

- 14 -
contends that the Court should overrule Puentes’ Objection because Puentes posts sexually explicit
photographs of Jane Doe 1. See Response at 24. Addressing Puentes’ sixth Objection to PSR ¶
14, at 4, the United States contends that Puentes admits to coercing Jane Doe 1 to send him sexually
explicit photographs, and that “this is precisely what was discovered on [Puentes’] phone as
Paragraph 14 states.” Response at 24. Finally, in response to Puentes’ seventh Objection to PSR
¶ 23, at 7, the United States does not object to this correction. See Response at 25.
On January 5, 2026, Puentes files his Defendant’s Reply to United States’ Response to
Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report, filed January 5, 2026 (Doc. 71)(“Reply”).
Puentes begins by stating that he seeks to avoid requiring Jane Doe 1 to retell her story in a public
setting, and therefore rests on the briefs regarding “any and all” outstanding legal disputes, and
maintains that the Court can resolve all remaining factual disputes without an evidentiary hearing.
Reply at 2. Regarding Puentes’ second Objection to the cross-reference at § 2G1.3(c)(1) for Count
1, Puentes agrees that he admits in his plea agreement to coercing Jane Doe 1 to send him sexually
explicit photograph, but reasserts that this coercion is different from causing Jane Doe 1 to create
the photograph. 	See Reply at 2. 	Puentes next discusses his third Objection to the 2-level
enhancement under § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A) as to Count 1 for “sexual contact” under § 2246(3), and
states that his Objection is not a legal dispute, but instead a concern that the reasons in the PSR for
the application of the enhancement -- reliance on Puentes’ Plea Agreement in which he admits to
causing Jane Doe 1 to engage in sexual activity -- are insufficient. See Reply at 6. In response to
the United States’ contention that the enhancement applies, because Jane Doe 1 states in her
forensic interview that she touched herself at Puentes’ request, Puentes does not deny that Jane
Doe 1 states that Puentes always asks her to touch herself, but highlights that law enforcement
does not recover images of this act. See Reply at 6. Finally, Puentes states that he maintains his
fourth Objection to the 2-level enhancement under § 2G2.1(b)(3) as to Count 1 for knowing
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 14 of 26

- 15 -
distribution of child pornography. See Reply at 6. Puentes clarifies that he does not dispute that
he posts images of Jane Doe 1, but he challenges the conclusion that any of these photographs
constitute child pornography. 	See Reply at 6. 	Puentes contends that, because law enforcement
does not recover any of the photographs which Puentes allegedly posts or distributes on social
media platforms, the United States cannot demonstrate that Puentes knowingly engages in
distribution of child pornography. See Reply at 7.
On January 15, 2026, the USPO responds to the Objections. 	See Addendum to the
Presentence Investigation Report at 1, filed January 15, 2026 (Doc. 73)(“Addendum”). Regarding
Puentes’ first Objection to the 8-level enhancement at to Count 2 pursuant to U.S.S.G. §
2G1.3(b)(5), the USPO agrees with Puentes and the United States that the USPO should remove
this enhancement from the PSR, based on new information that the USPO receives clarifying Jane
Doe 2’s birth month. See Addendum at 1. As to Puentes’ second Objection to the application of
the cross-reference at U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(c)(1) as to Count 1, the USPO agrees with the United
States that this cross-reference should apply, because the offense involves causing a minor to
engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct.
See Addendum at 2. Specifically, the USPO highlights an image that Jane Doe 1 sends to Puentes
“depicting buttocks wearing pink underwear with her vagina exposed” and the time that Jane Doe
1 sends Puentes a photograph of her rubbing her clitoris in response to Puentes’ frequent request
that she send pictures of herself masturbating as evidence for the cross-reference to apply.
Addendum at 2-3. In response to Puentes’ third Objection to the 2-level enhancement as to Count
1 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A), which applies if the offense involves the commission of
a sexual act or sexual contact, the USPO agrees with the United States’ analysis of the definition
of “sexual contact,” as 18 U.S.C. §2246(3) defines the term, to include when victims touch
themselves. 	Addendum at 3. 	Because Puentes requests photographs from Jane Doe 1 of her
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 15 of 26

- 16 -
masturbating, the USPO concludes that this enhancement should apply. 	See Addendum at 3.
Regarding Puentes’ fourth Objection to the 2-level enhancement as to Count 1 pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 2G2.1(b)(3), which applies if the defendant knowingly engages in distribution of child
pornography, the USPO cites, in support of the conclusion that the enhancement should apply, to
Jane Doe 1’s forensic interview and to statements that Puentes makes to law enforcement in which
he says “I might have done that actually . . .” in response to the question if he has ever posted nude
photographs online. Addendum at 4. In response to Puentes’ fifth Objection to the portion of PSR
¶ 13, at 4, which states that Puentes posts sexually explicit photographs online, the USPO
maintains that this information is accurate. 	See Addendum at 4. 	In response to Puentes’ sixth
Objection to the portion of PSR ¶ 14, at 4, which states that there is material on Jane Doe 1’s
telephone that is “sexual in nature,” the USPO maintains that this information is accurate. 	See
Addendum at 4. In response to Puentes’ seventh Objection to the portion of PSR ¶ 23, at 7, which
states that Jane Doe 2 is eleven-years old at the time of the conversations between Puentes and her,
the USPO states that it amends the PSR to reflect that Jane Doe 2 was twelve-years old given the
parties’ agreement.
On January 15, 2026, the USPO files a revised Presentence Investigation Report, which
revises paragraph 23 to reflect that Jane Doe 2 is twelve-years old when conversations between
her and Puentes begin, and removes the 8-level enhancement applied as to Count 2 pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(5). See Memorandum to the revised Presentence Investigation Report, at 1,
filed January 15, 2026 (Doc. 72).
ANALYSIS
The Court sustains in part and overrules in part the Objections. First, the Court sustains
Puentes’ first Objection to the 8-level enhancement under § 2G1.3(b)(5) as to Count 2, because
Jane Doe 2 is twelve-years old when Puentes first makes contact with her. 	Second, the Court
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 16 of 26

- 17 -
overrules Puentes’ second Objection to the § 2G1.3(c)(1) cross-reference for Count 1, because
Puentes causes Jane Doe 1 to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a
visual depiction of such conduct. Third, the Court overrules Puentes’ third Objection to the 2-level
enhancement under § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A) as to Count 1, because the offense involves the commission
of a sexual act or sexual contact. Fourth, the Court sustains Puentes’ fourth Objection to the 2-
level enhancement under § 2G2.1(b)(3) as to Count 1, because Puentes does not knowingly engage
in the distribution of child pornography. Fifth, the Court sustains Puentes’ fifth Objection to the
PSR ¶ 13, because Puentes does not post sexually explicit photos of Jane Doe 1 online. Sixth, the
Court overrules Puentes’ sixth Objection to the PSR ¶ 14, because Puentes does not contest the
factual accuracy of these statements. Finally, the Court sustains Puentes’ seventh Objection to the
PSR ¶ 23, because Jane Doe 2 is twelve years old at the time that her interactions with Puentes
begin.
I. 	THE 	COURT 	SUSTAINS 	PUENTES’ 	OBJECTION 	TO 	THE 	8-LEVEL
EHANCEMENT PURSUANT TO U.S.S.G § 2G1.3(b)(5) AS TO COUNT 2.
Section 2G1.3(b)(5) applies an 8-level enhancement if subsection (a)(3) -- a base offense
level of 28, if the defendant is convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) or § 2423(a) -- or (a)(4) -- a
base offense level of 24 otherwise -- applies, and the offense involves a minor who has not attained
the age of twelve years. 	U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(5). 	Puentes does not deny that subsection (a)(3)
applies, but argues that Jane Doe 2 attains the age of twelve before the conversations between
Puentes and Jane Doe 2 begin. See Objections at 2. The United States agrees that the Court should
sustain Puentes’ Objection, because the available chat messages between Puentes and Jane Doe 2
show that the two first begin chatting on October 19, 2021. See Response at 1. Jane Doe 2 is born
in June, 2009, so, accordingly, the first conversation between Puentes and Jane Doe 2 occurs
roughly four months after Jane Doe 2’s twelfth birthday. See Response at 1. The Court therefore
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 17 of 26

- 18 -
sustains Puentes’ Objection. This ruling lowers the adjusted offense level for Count 2 from 42 to
34.
II. 	THE COURT OVERRULES PUENTES’ OBJECTION TO THE APPLICATION OF
THE CROSS-REFERENCE TO U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(c)(1) FOR COUNT 1.
The applicable guideline for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), coercion and enticement
of a minor, is U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3. If certain criteria are met, however, § 2G1.3 includes a cross-
reference to § 2G2.1. 	Section 2G2.1 applies “[i]f the offense involved causing, transporting or
offering or seeking by notice or advertisement, a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for
the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct.” U.S.S.G § 2G1.3(c)(1). Application
Note 5 to § 2G1.3 provides that 18 U.S.C. § 2255(2) defines “sexually explicit conduct” for
purposes of the cross-reference. Section 2256(2) defines “sexually explicit conduct” as “graphic
sexual intercourse including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether
between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the
genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited.” 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(B). The definition
also includes “graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any
person.” 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(B). The statute defines producing “child pornography” as creating
a “visual depiction” of a minor engaged in “sexually explicit conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8).
Puentes argues that the cross-reference cannot apply, because the United States cannot
prove that he “causes” a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing
a visual depiction of such conduct. 	Objections at 4. 	Puentes argues that there is only one
photograph which law enforcement is able to access that falls within the definition of “sexually
explicit conduct,” an image that PSR ¶ 17, at 5, describes as “depicting buttocks wearing pink
underwear” with a partially exposed vagina. Objections at 4. Puentes argues that, even under an
expansive definition of “causing,” where a defendant causes the production of a photograph when
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 18 of 26

- 19 -
his coaxing of the victim causes her to engage in sexually explicit conduct and then take a
photograph of that conduct to send to the defendant, see United States v. Whitesell, 314 F.3d 1251,
1256 (11th Cir. 2002), the United States cannot prove that he causes the production of the sexually
explicit photograph. See Objections at 4. The pink underwear photograph appears in an Instagram
conversation between Puentes and Jane Doe 1 on July 7, 2021, during which time she begins in
the bathroom and sends photographs to Puentes in response to Puentes’ requests. See Response at
2-6. At 3:33:31 a.m., Puentes comments favorably on a prior attachment that Jane Doe 1 sends
while she is in the bathroom. 	See Response at 7. Then, at 3:41:29 a.m., Jane Doe 1 sends the
sexually explicit photograph wearing pink underwear, followed by another photograph at 3:41:31
a.m. of buttocks wearing light blue underwear. See Response at 8. At 3:41:34 a.m., Jane Doe 1
states “Sorry I had to leave my bathroom” and at the same time sends a photograph or video of
buttocks wearing black underwear. 	Objections at 5. 	Puentes argues that the fact that all three
photographs, all displaying different underwear, are sent within a five second timeframe makes it
impossible that Jane Doe 1 took these photographs, including the sexually explicit photograph, in
response to Puentes’ requests. See Objections at 5. Puentes maintains that Jane Doe 1 must have
created some of the photographs at an earlier date, and therefore he is not responsible for causing
the production of the explicit photograph. See Objections at 5.
The Court agrees with Puentes that this evidence does not prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that Puentes causes the production of a sexually explicit photograph as the cross-
reference requires. 	The Court concludes, given the quick succession in which different
photographs in different pairs of underwear are sent, that it is more likely than not that these
photographs were taken in advance and not at Puentes’ immediate direction. 	This evidence,
however, is not the only evidence on which the Court may rely to find that the United States has
proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Puentes causes a minor to engage in sexually
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 19 of 26

- 20 -
explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct. There is another
messaging exchange between Puentes and Jane Doe 1 on July 31, 2021, where Puentes is directing
Jane Doe 1 to create and send images of herself in real time, one of which the Court determines by
a preponderance of the evidence depicts Jane Doe 1’s vagina. See Response at 9-13. In response
to Puentes’ messages -- “That was a bomb lil shake lemme see that again make it longer tho Fuck”
and “Or the titty tease,” -- Jane Doe 1 sends Puentes four attachments. Response at 13. Puentes
then responds: “Fasho been naughty, ya lil pussy playing peek a boo with me.” Response at 13.
Although law enforcement is unable to recover these attachments in question, the Court determines
that the phrase “ya lil pussy playing peek a boo with me” is enough to show by the preponderance
of the evidence that Jane Doe 1 takes a photograph that qualifies as sexually explicit conduct --
the “graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person.”
18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(B). Moreover, the Court determines that Jane Doe 1 takes this photograph in
response to Puentes’ request for sexually explicit photographs. The Court therefore determines by
the preponderance of the evidence that Puentes causes a minor to engage in sexually explicit
conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct. Finally, in Jane Doe 1’s
forensic interview, Jane Doe 1 discloses that Puentes would demand that she create photographs
for him, rather than send images she had saved. See Response at 16 (citing Forensic Interview of
Jane Doe 1 at 11:23:12). Jane Doe 1 further discloses that she sent Puentes a photograph of her
rubbing her clitoris in response to Puentes’ request for pictures of her playing with herself. See
Response at 16 (citing Forensic Interview of Jane Doe 1 at 11:23:40-11:25:00). See PSR ¶ 19, at
6. 	This evidence also supports the Court’s conclusion that the United States has shown, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that Puentes causes a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct
for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of that conduct such that the cross-reference to §
2G1.3(c)(1) as to Count 1 applies. Accordingly, the Court overrules Puentes’ second Objection.
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 20 of 26

- 21 -
III. 	THE 	COURT 	OVERRULES 	PUENTES’ 	OBJECTION 	TO 	THE 	2-LEVEL
ENHANCEMENT PURSUANT TO U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A) AS TO COUNT 1.
Under Section 2G2.1(b)(2)(A), there is a 2-level enhancement if the offense involves the
commission of a sexual act or sexual contact. See 8 U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A). Puentes argues
that the PSR applies this enhancement on the basis of his admission in the plea agreement that “‘he
agrees that his conduct causes Jane Doe 1 to engage in sexual activity.’” Objections at 6 (quoting
PSR ¶ 22, at 6). Puentes argues that, although he admits causing Jane Doe 1 to engage in sexual
activity, that the definition of “sexual act” or “sexual contact” under § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A), which 18
U.S.C. §§ 2246(2) and (3) defines, requires contact or touching, and that, because he never had
any physical contact with Jane Doe 1 that the enhancement cannot apply. 	Objections at 6. 	In
response, the United States highlights that § 2246(3) defines sexual contact to mean “the
intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia . . . of any person with
an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.”
18 U.S.C. § 2246(3). See Response at 17. 	The United States maintains that, based on this
definition, sexual contact encompasses touching by any person, not solely the defendant, including
when a victim touches themselves at the behest and direction of a defendant. See Response at 17.
The United States concludes, therefore, that, in coercing Jane Doe 1 to masturbate for him, Puentes
causes Jane Doe 1 to engage in sexual contact. See Response at 17. In his reply, Puentes states
that the United States “misconstrues” his Objection as a legal dispute, and that he is “not ignorant
of case law cited in the United States’ response suggesting that self-masturbation could constitute
‘sexual contact . . . .’” 	Reply at 6. Instead, his only concern is that the reasons that the PSR states
for the application of the enhancement are insufficient. Reply at 6. Puentes responds to the United
States’ contention that the enhancement applies, because of Jane Doe 1’s statement that she touches
herself at Puentes’ request, by stating that he does not deny that Jane Doe 1 states that Puentes
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 21 of 26

- 22 -
always asks her to touch herself. See Reply at 6. The Court interprets Puentes’ reply as a waiver
of this Objection, given that the enhancement is now based on something beyond what the PSR
alleges -- Jane Doe 1’s allegation that she touches herself at Puentes’ request. Even if Puentes does
not waive his Objection, the Court determines that the United States proves by a preponderance of
the evidence that the offense involves the commission of a sexual act or sexual contact, because
Jane Doe 1 touches herself in response to Puentes’ request, see PSR ¶ 19, at 6, and the applicable
definition of sexual contact, § 2246(3), makes clear that self-masturbation can satisfy the
requirements of a sexual contact under § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A). 	Accordingly, the Court overrules
Puentes’ third Objection.
IV. 	THE 	COURT 	SUSTAINS 	PUENTES’ 	OBJECTION 	TO 	THE 	2-LEVEL
ENHANCEMENT PURSUANT TO U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(3) AS TO COUNT 1.
Section 2G2.1(b)(3) provides for a 2-level enhancement if the defendant knowingly
engages in distribution of child pornography. See U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(3). Puentes does not deny
that he posts images of Jane Doe 1 online, but contends that these images do not meet the definition
of “sexually explicit conduct” in 18 U.S.C. § 2256, so as to constitute child pornography.
Objections at 7. See also 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8) (defining the production of “child pornography” as
creating a “visual depiction” of a minor engaged in “sexually explicit conduct.”).
Sexually explicit conduct” requires that the photographs depict “graphic
sexual intercourse including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal,
whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated
sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is
exhibited . . . [or] graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals,
or pubic area of any person.
18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(B). 	Law enforcement is unable to recover any of the images that Puentes
posts or otherwise distributes online. See Objections at 7. The Court therefore must rely on out-
of-court statements to support the conclusion that the images which Puentes posts online constitute
a visual depiction of a minor engaging in “sexually explicit conduct.”
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 22 of 26

- 23 -
The United States points to statements from Jane Doe 1’s forensic interview in which she
states that Puentes repeatedly posts her “nudes” online and sent them to people at her school. See
Response at 24 (citing Forensic Interview of Jane Doe 1 at 11:05). See PSR ¶ 15, at 4. The Court
notes, however, that Jane Doe 1 does not always use the word “nude” to refer to photographs of
her completely naked, but sometimes will use the word to refer to photographs in her underwear.
See Forensic Interview of Jane Doe 1 at 10:17:01-10:17:40 (responding to a question about a
described “nude” that Jane Doe 1’s ex-girlfriend posts, Jane Doe 1 clarifies “It was just a booty
pic, I had underwear on and stuff, it was just like a basic booty pic”). Jane Doe 1 also reaches out
to police on January 31, 2022, to report that her friends are reporting to her that a Snapchat account
is posting “nude” photos of her on Snapchat. See PSR ¶ 15, at 4. The police report states, however,
that the Snapchat material reported to be child sexual abuse material does not show Jane Doe 1
“exposing her genitals.” Reply at 7 n. 5 (quoting State of New Mexico Uniform Incident Report,
at 3, filed January 21, 2026 (Doc. 79)). The Court therefore concludes that, because the police
report determines that these photographs do not show genitals, paired with the knowledge that Jane
Doe 1 will use the word “nude” to refer to images that do not qualify as sexually explicit material,
the United States has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that these Snapchat images
Jane Doe 1 refers to qualify as sexually explicit material.
The USPO highlights statements made by Puentes to law enforcement on March 21, 2023,
as support for the enhancement. See Addendum at 4. In response to the question of if he had ever
posted females’ nude photographs on social media, Puentes responds: “I might have done that
actually . . . .” 	PSR ¶ 21, at 6. 	The Court concludes, however, that there is no or insufficient
evidence to demonstrate that Puentes is referring to Jane Doe 1’s photographs, and therefore this
statement does not lead the Court to conclude the enhancement applies. Finally, the United States
contends that Puentes threatens to send explicit photographs to Jane Doe 1’s boyfriend, and that
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 23 of 26

- 24 -
“[i]f necessary, Jane Doe 1 will testify that Defendant, did ultimately, send sexually explicit
material of Jane Doe 1 to her boyfriend.” Response at 23. The Court first notes that this fact is not
stated in the PSR or the Addendum. Second, looking at the messages between Puentes and Jane
Doe 1, Puentes threatens only to send Jane Doe 1’s photographs to her boyfriend; there is no
mention that the photographs are explicit. See Response at 24. Taking into account the fact that
the majority of photographs which Jane Doe 1 sends to Puentes do not qualify as sexually explicit
material, the Court finds this statement in the United States’ Response, without more, insufficient
to hold that the United States has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Puentes
knowingly distributes child pornography. 	See PSR ¶ 19, at 5-6 (“Jane Doe 1 stated there were
only two or three times that she sent the defendant fully nude photos, indicating she usually was
in her underwear or bra.”). Accordingly, the Court sustains Puentes’ fourth Objection. If, however,
the United States chooses to present Jane Doe 1 to testify at the sentencing hearing, and she testifies
to the Court’s satisfaction that the photographs which Puentes sends to Jane Doe 1’s boyfriend
qualify as sexually explicit material, then the Court will overrule Puentes’ Objection. 	In
accordance with this ruling, the Court adjusts Puentes’ adjusted offense level for Count 1 from 40
to 38 and the applicable offense level from 43 to 42.
V. 	THE COURT SUSTAINS PUENTES’ OBJECTION TO PSR ¶ 13, AT 4.
Paragraph 13, at 4, states in relevant part: “Despite her pleas, sexually explicit photos of
Jane Doe 1 were posted publicly online.” PSR ¶ 13, at 4. Puentes objects to this sentence, because
it suggests that Puentes posts “sexually explicit photos” of Jane Doe 1 online. 	Objections at 7.
The Court agrees with Puentes that this statement, taken in the broader context of paragraph 13, at
4, which discusses Puentes threatening Jane Doe 1 to obtain photographs from her, implies that
Puentes is the one who posts sexually explicit photographs of Jane Doe 1. 	See PSR ¶ 13, at 4.
Because the Court determines, in response to Puentes’ fourth Objection, that the United States does
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 24 of 26

- 25 -
not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the photographs which Puentes posts of Jane
Doe 1 constitute “sexually explicit” material, the Court sustains Puentes’ Objection to this
statement in the PSR. 	If Jane Doe 1 testifies at the sentencing, however, that the photographs
which Puentes’ posts constitute “sexually explicit material,” the Court will overrule this Objection.
VI. 	THE COURT OVERRULES PUENTES’ OBJECTION TO THE PSR ¶ 14, AT 4.
Paragraph 14 of the PSR states in relevant part: “Law enforcement conducted an extraction
of Jane Doe 1’s iPhone and observed dozens of nude images and videos of Jane Doe 1 exposing
her genitals. . . . The files appeared sexual in nature and focused on Jane Doe 1’s genitals and
breasts.” PSR ¶ 14, at 4. Puentes does not dispute these facts, but instead contends that the fact
that there is sexual in nature material on Jane Doe 1’s telephone does not mean that Puentes is
associated with these materials. See Objections at 8. The Court concludes that paragraph 14, at
4, of the PSR does not state that Puentes is associated with these materials. Accordingly, because
Puentes does not dispute the facts as stated in paragraph 14, the Court determines by a
preponderance of the evidence that the facts are true and overrules Puentes’ sixth Objection.
VII. 	THE COURT SUSTAINS PUENTES’ OBJECTION TO THE PSR ¶ 23, AT 7.
Paragraph 23 of the PSR states in relevant part: “At the time of the chats, the defendant
was 21 years old, and Jane Doe 2 was approximately 11 years old.” PSR ¶ 23, at 7. In accordance
with Puentes’ first Objection to the 8-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(5) as to Count
2, Puentes objects to the conclusion that Jane Doe 2 is eleven years old at the time of the
conversations between Puentes and Jane Doe 2. See Objections at 8. Because no party objects to
the conclusion that Jane Doe 2 is twelve years old at the time of the chats, the Court sustains
Puentes’ Objection. See Response at 25; Addendum at 4.
IT IS ORDERED that: (i) the Defendant Adrian Puentes’ Objections to the Presentence
Investigative Report, filed December 1, 2025 (Doc. 66) (“Objections”), are sustained in part and
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 25 of 26

- 26 -
overruled in part; (ii) the 8-level U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(5) enhancement as to Count 2 does not
apply; (iii) the cross-reference to U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(c)(1) as to Count 1 applies; (iv) the 2-level
enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A) as to Count 1 applies; (v) the 2-level
enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(3) as to Count 1 does not apply; (vi) the applicable
offense level is 42; (vi) the applicable criminal history category is I; (vii) the United States
Sentencing Guidelines establish an imprisonment range of 360 months to life.
________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Counsel:
Todd Blanche
Deputy Attorney General
Ryan Ellison
Acting United States Attorney
Jesse Pecoraro
Assistant United States Attorneys
United States Attorney’s Office
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
Emily P. Carey
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Office of the Federal Public Defender
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Attorney for the Defendant
Case 1:23-cr-01770-JB Document 80 Filed 01/22/26 Page 26 of 26