Phillips

MEMORANDUM **

Kevin Mark Phillips appeals his 120-month sentence for possession of child pornography. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). We affirm, but remand for correction of the written judgment.

(1) Phillips first asserts that the district court erred in making a five-level adjustment for “[djistribution for the receipt, or expectation of receipt, of a thing of value,” to his Guideline offense level. USSG § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B). 1 He asserts that his offense was not within that provision. We disagree.

Initially, Phillips claims that the facts had to be proved by clear and convincing evidence. While we are dubious about that proposition, 2 the government agrees *60 with that standard. At any rate, he does not controvert the evidence that he told agents that he sent and received child pornography and, indeed, that “he would trade” with other individuals over the internet. Thus, regardless of the standard of review, the government’s burden of persuasion was met. See United States v. Romero-Rendon, 220 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2000).

Moreover, the district court did not err when it determined that trading child pornography for child pornography was “distribution” for a “thing of value”…