CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Leon Hensley surreptitiously recorded minors using the bathroom. He pleaded guilty to 25 counts of production and attempted production of child pornography. The district court sentenced him to 293 months of confinement. On appeal, Hensley alleges two sentencing errors: (1) the district court impermissibly double counted when calculating his offense level; and (2) the district court misunderstood its discretion to depart from the Guidelines. Seeing no error on either front, we affirm.

BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. The University of Kentucky held not one, not two, not three, but four student conduct hearings after Jane Doe reported that a student raped her in her dorm room on campus. Each of the first three resulted in expulsions or long-term suspensions for the accused, but the University’s appeals board overturned each determination for procedural deficiencies. After the third reversal, Doe filed a Title IX lawsuit against the University for its actions in response to the rape. Then, in the fourth hearing—nearly two-and-a-half years after Doe first reported the rape—the hearing panel flipped and ruled against her. Doe now claims that the University mishandled her fourth hearing in retaliation for her lawsuit. The University moved for summary judgment and the district court granted the motion, concluding that Doe could not state a prima facie case of retaliation under Title IX. Because the district court’s decision rests on several legal errors and the record shows that a reasonable juror could find Doe established a prima facie case, we reverse and remand.

DAVIS, Circuit Judge. Yanjun Xu, a Chinese citizen and member of China’s Ministry of State Security (an intelligence organization), was convicted of conspiracy to commit economic espionage and conspiracy to steal trade secrets from multiple aviation companies over a five-year period. Xu was also convicted of attempted economic espionage by theft or fraud and attempted theft of composite fan-blade technology from GE Aviation. Xu was sentenced to a combined 240 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Xu seeks to have the judgment vacated and the case remanded to the district court for a new trial. He argues that the district court erred in failing to dismiss Counts 1 and 2 in the indictment as duplicitous, and that the district court abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b). In the alternative, Xu seeks to have his sentence vacated, arguing that it was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We affirm the district court’s judgment.