No. 23-3778 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kenneth Howard Worthy

Defendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________

Submitted: November 21, 2024 Filed: February 21, 2025 ____________ Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ ERICKSON, Circuit Judge.

A jury convicted Kenneth Worthy of sexual exploitation of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e), as well as receipt and distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). During the investigation, law enforcement interviewed Worthy and conducted a consensual search of his phone, which uncovered evidence that he had molested his grandson, John Doe. Worthy moved to suppress statements from his interview and evidence seized from his phone, contending he was coerced into the interview and the cell phone search. The district court 1 denied both motions and Worthy proceeded to trial. Worthy was convicted and sentenced to a 480-month term of imprisonment. When calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range, over Worthy’s objections, the district court added eight points to Worthy’s criminal history pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(5). On appeal, Worthy challenges the district court’s denials of his motions to suppress, the introduction of a photo, and application of § 2G2.1. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND

Worthy communicated with Gary Kelly on dating and messaging apps. The Southwest Missouri Cyber Crimes Task Force interviewed Kelly in early March 2021, as part of a child exploitation investigation. Kelly told investigators that someone called “Ken” was sexually abusing children and had sent him images. “Ken” also told Kelly that he had sexual contact with his grandson and expressed a desire to have additional sexual contact with the child.

An officer identified “Ken” as Kenneth Worthy using the details provided by Kelly. On March 4, 2021, the officer and a supervisor approached Worthy at his home. The officers explained to Worthy that he had been named in an investigation and asked to speak with him. Worthy agreed to drive to the West Plains Police Department for an interview, and the officers returned to the department. Upon returning to the department, the officers discovered that Worthy had left a voicemail requesting a telephone interview. An officer returned Worthy’s call and asked whether Worthy was willing to be interviewed at his home. Worthy agreed.

Later that day, two plain-clothed officers went to Worthy’s home. Worthy told the officers that he preferred to speak with them in his nearby detached garage.

1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2- Worthy and the officers walked to the garage, which contained three vehicles. The large garage door (eight to ten feet wide) remained open throughout the officers’ visit.

Once in the garage, Worthy was advised of his Miranda rights. While the officers did not specifically inform Worthy that he was free to leave, they did tell him that he could refuse to answer questions and terminate the interview at any time. Although both officers were armed with their department-issued handgun, neither unholstered their weapon while at Worthy’s property. One of the officers paced the garage and, at some point, took a phone call ou