Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10161/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10161-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Bruce Lloyd
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10161

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

ROBERT BRUCE LLOYD,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CR-138-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Lloyd appeals his conviction of receipt of child pornography in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). In the factual basis for his guilty plea, 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 6, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10161 Document: 00513666197 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2016
No. 16-10161

2

Lloyd admitted he “knowingly received child pornography that had been 

mailed, shipped, and transported in interstate commerce by any means, including by computer.”

Lloyd asserts that § 2252A(a)(2) should be construed as requiring the 

government to prove, or the defendant to admit, that the “offense caused the 

[child pornography] to move in interstate commerce, or, at least, . . . that the 

relevant [child pornography] moved in interstate commerce at a time reasonably near the offense.” Relying on Bond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2077 (2014), 

Lloyd contends that a conviction in the absence of such proof impermissibly

intrudes on state police power. He further urges that the factual basis for his 

guilty plea was insufficient under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 because he did not admit to such facts.

“Rule 11(b)(3) requires a district court taking a guilty plea to make certain that the factual conduct admitted by the defendant is sufficient as a matter 

of law to establish a violation of the statute to which he entered his plea.” 

United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 313 (5th Cir. 2010) (footnote omitted). 

Plain error review applies to Lloyd’s forfeited objection to the factual basis for 

his guilty plea. See id. To establish plain error, Lloyd must show a forfeited 

error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett 

v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this 

court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the 

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.

The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to prohibit local, intrastate 

possession and production of child pornography where the materials used in 

the production were moved in interstate commerce. See United States v. Dickson, 632 F.3d 186, 192 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v. Kallestad, 236 F.3d 225, 

226–31 (5th Cir. 2000). Bond did not abrogate the holdings of those cases. As 

 Case: 16-10161 Document: 00513666197 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2016
No. 16-10161

3

Lloyd concedes, the district court’s finding that there was a sufficient factual 

basis for his guilty plea was not a clear or obvious error in light of this caselaw. 

See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. Lloyd raises the issue to preserve it for further 

review.

Alternatively, Lloyd asserts that Kallestad was wrongly decided and that 

the Commerce Clause does not authorize Congress to impose federal criminal 

liability where the defendant’s conduct is tenuously related to interstate commerce. He also claims, in the alternative, that plain error review should not 

apply to his forfeited objection to the factual basis of his guilty plea. Because 

one panel of this court may not overrule the decision of another absent a superseding en banc or Supreme Court decision, United States v. Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 

303, 313 & n.34 (5th Cir. 2002), Lloyd is correct that these issues are foreclosed.

The judgment is AFFIRMED. The government’s motions for summary 

affirmance and, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief, are 

DENIED.

 Case: 16-10161 Document: 00513666197 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/06/2016