• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Manchester and Associates

Manchester and Associates

Pennsylvania Criminal & DUI Defense

  • Home
  • About
    • Brian V. Manchester, Esq.
    • Gregory E. Davidson, Esq.
    • Karen E. Kuebler, Esq.
    • Support Team
    • Team Philosophy
  • Practice Areas
    • DUI Defense
    • Drug Crimes
    • Financial Crimes
    • Sex Crimes
    • Violent Crimes
    • Other Criminal Offenses
    • Vehicular Homicide
    • Other Traffic Offenses
    • Juvenile Cases
    • Appeals
    • Civil Asset Forfeiture
  • Resources
    • Video Library
    • Blog
    • Court Locations
    • Bail Bondsmen
    • Criminal Law
    • Downloads
  • Video Library
  • FAQs
  • Client Reviews
  • Contact Us

December 27, 2018 By admin

← DUI Portal

Distribution of Child Pornography | Case Study

Distribution of Child Pornography

Child Pornography charges have tremendous consequences for those convicted in the State of Pennsylvania. In “Child Pornography Charges in Pennsylvania”, we discussed how these charges can effectively result in a ‘life sentence’.

Now we will examine US v Scott, a child pornography case that shows how possession of child pornography can lead to distribution charges, and how those distribution charges can be fought against.

                US v Scott 

Jason Scott pleaded guilty to one count of possessing child pornography and was sentenced to 108 months in prison and a lifetime term of supervised release. He appealed the district court’s calculation of his Sentencing Guidelines range as well as the length and conditions of his supervised release.

A grand jury indicted Scott on one count of possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and three counts of receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A). He originally pleaded guilty to one count of receiving child pornography and was sentenced to 235 months in prison and a ten-year term of supervised release. However, this conviction was vacated after Scott filed a motion alleging that he pleaded guilty because his lawyer assured him that the district judge had told a mutual friend that Scott would get “hammered” if he went to trial, but that the judge would “take it easy on him” by sentencing him to only five years if Scott pleaded guilty.

The second time around Scott pleaded guilty again to a single count of possessing child pornography. This plea’s stipulated factual basis agents conducting an investigation into the use of a computer program called LimeWire determined that Scott’s computer “was actively downloading and possessing child pornography.” Law enforcement was able to download three illicit videos from the “shared” Limewire file folder on Scott’s computer. Through a forensic examination of Scott’s computer they confirmed that those videos were downloaded from the internet. The placement of files in the shared folder is part of Limewire’s default (but optional) settings.

Scott’s Presentencing Report (PSR) stated that he had used LimeWire to traffic in child pornography. The PSR recommended a five-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) for “distribution [of child pornography] for the receipt, or expectation of a thing of value, but not for pecuniary gain.” Scott objected to this enhancement, arguing that a two-level enhancement under § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) for “distribution other than distribution described in subdivisions (A) through (E)” should be applied instead. The PSR disagreed with this position, telling the court that Scott “had the file sharing function of [LimeWire] turned on … allowing him to not only receive … but to ‘distribute’ child pornography.” The PSR added that § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) applies when a defendant trades in child pornography in exchange for child pornography.

Scott disagreed and argued to the court that he had been convicted of possession, not distribution, of child pornography. He stated that Government had not presented any “evidence that he knew he was making child pornography available to others or that he was a sophisticated computer user who might be presumed cognizant of the sharing.”

  • 2G2.2(b)(3)(B); Receipt, or Expectation of a Thing of Value

The issue in Scott’s case was whether he distributed child pornography “for the receipt, or expectation of receipt, of a thing of value” so as to warrant a five-level enhancement. The Fifth Circuit stated that a sentencing court must make a “requisite finding” that a defendant used LimeWire to “download and distribute child pornography” within the meaning of § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B). The sentencing court had concluded that Scott “by using LimeWire and other peer-to-peer file sharing programs, agreed to share the child pornography he gathered.” The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded Scott’s case back to the sentencing court with instructions that the court must determine “whether the Government has met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Scott knowingly used LimeWire in ‘the kind of exchange contemplated by § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B).’”

In short, the sentencing court did not make an “express finding” that Scott “knowingly used LimeWire to exchange child pornography” sufficient to create an “agreement” to distribute child pornography stored on his computer in exchange for “additional child pornography.”

Because of this the Fifth Circuit remanded Scott’s case back to the sentencing court with instructions that the court determine “whether the Government has met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Scott knowingly used LimeWire in ‘the kind of exchange contemplated by § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B).’”

 

 

 

Filed Under: Sex Crimes

Primary Sidebar

A wealth of information about Pennsylvania DUI law, along with questions and answers, can be found below. If you are facing DUI charges, use the buttons below to contact us and benefit from our expertise and experience.

CALL TOLL FREE: (800) 243-4878 Contact Us

Search Blog Posts

Post Categories

  • Assault (4)
  • Bail (3)
  • Child Pornography Defense (1)
  • Civil Forfeitures (5)
  • Constitutional Rights (8)
  • Court Procedure (2)
  • Crimes (10)
  • Criminal Cases (4)
  • Criminal Defense (33)
  • Domestic Assault (1)
  • Driving License Issues (3)
  • Drugs (9)
  • DUI (90)
  • Federal Crimes (2)
  • Felony or Misdemeanor Charges (3)
  • Homicide (1)
  • Immigration Consequences (1)
  • Juvenile (2)
  • Medical Marijuana (2)
  • News (5)
  • Professional License Issues (3)
  • Sex Crimes (7)
  • Title IX/Student Discipline (5)
  • Vehicular Homicide (1)
  • Vehicular Offenses (7)

Post Tags

Aggravated Assault Aggravated Assault By Vehicle While DUI arrest clearfield clearfield county clearfield dui Coronavirus Covid-19 Domestic Violence Driving Under the Influence Driving While Suspended Drug Crimes DUI DUI Defense DUI In Pennsylvania Expungement extradition Firearms Gun Laws Huntington County Involuntary Vehicular Manslaughter LSD Charges Manslaughter mckean county dui Miranda Rights News Articles Pennsylvania Law PFA restraining order Scientific Defense Self Defense Simple Assault Simple Assault Charges Texting While Driving Vehicular Homicide warrant Zoom Bombing

Footer

Manchester and Associates

124 West Bishop Street
Bellefonte, PA, 16823

1-(800)-243-4878

Email Us Here

Additional Information

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2023 Manchester and Associates - PA. All rights reserved. Call Us!