Guideline "Clutter"?

U.S. v. Ray, 2013 WL 386424 (2/1/13) (Kan.) (Published) - In response to a rehearing petition, the 10th adds a couple of pages of reasoning to support its prior decision that a child porn defendant need not be computer-savvy enough to know that s/he is distributing porn by virtue of a file-sharing program to get the enhancement for distributing child porn under § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F). The 10th found unpersuasive the defendant's argument that a 2-level reduction under § 2G2.2(b)(1) was warranted in light of the Commission's reason for providing for the reduction: "individuals convicted of receipt of child porn with no intent to distribute will receive the reduction." The 10th explains: "that language cannot be taken as a precise formulation of the Guidelines. It is true in general, but not when the defendant actually distributed child porn (albeit unintentionally). Perhaps it would have been better if the Commission had included all the necessary qualifications to each of its sentences. But such detail can detract from the purpose of stating the general rule without too much clutter." It's merely "an instance of the inexactness of expression of thought commonly (if not inevitably) found in summary explanations of technical language." So the next time you're up against unhelpful guideline language just describe it as "clutter" and you should be home free.