Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02889/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02889-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Patrick Koenen
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable John F. Nangle, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2889

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Steven Patrick Koenen, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 12, 2007

Filed: July 25, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN and MELLOY, Circuit Judges, and NANGLE,1

 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

By way of a superseding indictment, Steven Patrick Koenen was charged with

twenty-two counts of production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

2251(b) and (e), four counts of distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(1), 2252A(a)(1), 2252(b)(1), and 2252A(b)(1), and one count of

possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(4)(B) and

2252(b)(2).

Appellate Case: 06-2889 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/25/2007 Entry ID: 3333252
2

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

-2-

Koenen pled guilty to one count of production of child pornography and to one

count of distributing child pornography, reserving the right under Rule 11(e)(2) of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to appeal the issue of the sufficiency of the nexus

with interstate commerce to support a conviction on the manufacturing count. The

district court2

 sentenced Koenen to 360 months’ imprisonment on the production

count and to 240 months on the distribution count, the sentences to be served

concurrently.

Koenen acknowledged during the guilty plea proceedings that the camera he

had used to manufacture the pornography charged in the production count had been

mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. On appeal, he

acknowledges that this court has on a number of occasions rejected claims similar to

that which he raises in this appeal, namely, that the mere transportation across state

or international lines of cameras used in the manufacture of child pornography does

not constitute an impact upon interstate commerce sufficient to form a jurisdictional

basis upon which Congress could validly prohibit the charged conduct under its

Commerce Clause powers. See United States v. Mugan, 441 F.3d 622 (8th Cir. 2006),

cert denied, 127 S. Ct. 191 (2006); United States v. Hampton, 260 F.3d 832 (8th Cir.

2001); United States v. Hoggard, 254 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2001); United States v.

Bausch, 140 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 1998). Notwithstanding the fact that this panel of the

court is bound by those decisions, see, e.g., Hoggard, 254 F.3d at 746, Koenen

contends that the district court failed to conduct the case-specific analysis that he

argues is required by our holding in Bausch. We reject this argument, for as pointed

out by the government, Koenen’s admission that the camera he used to produce the

child pornography had traveled in interstate commerce is by itself sufficient to satisfy

the analysis required by Bausch.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2889 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/25/2007 Entry ID: 3333252