
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. William SCHLIEBENER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-4566.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 27, 2016.
    Joseph J. Karaszewski, Assistant United States Attorney, for William J. Hochul, Jr., United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, NY, for Appellee.
    Jeffrey L. Ciccone, Jay S. Ovsiovitch, Federal Public Defender’s Office for the Western District of New York, Rochester, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, DENNIS JACOBS and RICHARD C. -WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant William Schliebener, Jr., appeals a judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Geraci, J.) on December 3, 2014. Following Schliebener’s plea of guilty to one count of transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) and three counts of knowingly producing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a), (e), the district court sentenced him to 300 months’ imprisonment and 15 years of supervised release. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and the procedural history of this case.

“A sentencing court’s legal application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo, while the court’s underlying factual findings with respect to sentencing, established by a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ are reviewed for clear error.” United States v. Cossey, 632 F.3d 82, 86 (2d Cir.2011) (quoting United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438, 464 (2d Cir.2004)).

Schliebener argues first that the district court’s application of the “one-book rule” when calculating Schliebener’s Guidelines range violated his rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause. The one-book rule instructs that, “[i]f the defendant is convicted of two offenses, the first committed before, and the second after, a revised edition of the Guidelines Manual became effective, the revised edition of the Guidelines Manual is to be applied to both offenses.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Man- ' ual § 1B1.11(b)(3) (2015). In this ease, the revised edition of the Guidelines Manual in effect at the time Schliebener committed his fourth offense (the transportation count) contained additional enhancements applicable to his three earlier offenses (the production counts) that did not exist at the time Sehliebener committed those earlier offenses. Application of the one-book rule resulted in the district court calculating a Guidelines range of 324 to 405 months’ imprisonment instead of a range of 168 to 210 months’ imprisonment.

Schliebener’s argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Kumar, 617 F.3d 612 (2d Cir.2010). There, we explained that “[t]he existence of an ex post facto violation turns on whether an individual was deprived of fair notice.... ” Id. at 628. Accordingly, because the “adoption of the one-book rule prior to the commission of the [defendant’s first] offense ... placets] [the defendant] on notice of the consequences of committing [a] second offense,” there is no violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause when the rule is applied. Id. Sehliebener claims that, notwithstanding Kumar’s general rule, he lacked notice here because the offense conduct underlying the production counts took place in North Carolina and those counts were included in his plea agreement in the District Court for the Western District of New York only as a result of his agreement to waive any objection based on venue. However, although Sehliebener is correct that his waiver facilitated his prosecution in the Western District of New York, it is undisputed that no waiver was needed for the government to prosecute all counts, including the transportation count, in a single district in North Carolina. See 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a). Sehliebener was therefore on notice that he could be sentenced for all offenses in a single proceeding and that, as a result, the commission of the transportation count would result in increased penalties for the production counts. Because such notice is all that is required, Kumar, 617 F.3d at 628, the location in which (on his consent) Sehliebener was ultimately convicted and sentenced is irrelevant to our analysis of his ex post facto claim.

We also reject as meritless Schliebener’s contention that the district court clearly erred in applying an enhancement for the commission of a sex act in connection with the transportation count. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2G1.3(b)(4) (2013). The district court received evidence that Schliebener’s minor victim in the transportation offense told authorities that Sehliebener had intercourse with her and performed oral sex on her, both of which are sex acts. See 18 U.S.G. § 2246(2); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2G1.3 cmt. n. 1 (2013). Although, as Sehliebener observes, an analysis of a rape kit test produced no evidence of semen or saliva, the victim also stated that Sehliebener had condoms and that she showered before the rape kit test was performed. Given the undisputed evidence in the record that Sehliebener committed sex acts on other minors, it was not clear error for the district court to credit the victim’s statements and to view them as explaining the seemingly inconsistent rape kit results.

We have considered all of Schliebener’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.  