Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01152/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01152-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark Dewayne Dunlap
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1152

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri.

Mark Dewayne Dunlap, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. * 

___________

 Submitted: May 18, 2006

 Filed: May 24, 2006 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mark Dewayne Dunlap (Dunlap) pled guilty to producing child pornography,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (d). The district court1

 sentenced Dunlap to

151 months’ imprisonment. Dunlap appeals, arguing subsections 2251(a) and (d) are

unconstitutional as applied to the facts of his case, because the child pornography

images were not transported in interstate or foreign commerce, thus the statutes

criminalize purely intrastate production and possession of child pornography. Dunlap

Appellate Case: 06-1152 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2006 Entry ID: 2048285
-2-

admittedly used a camera and film that had traveled in interstate commerce. Dunlap’s

specific argument is foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v. Mugan, 441

F.3d 622, 628-30 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding federal statutes prohibiting the local

production of child pornography using materials that have moved in interstate

commerce are a permissible exercise of Congress’s authority under the Commerce

Clause, and homegrown child pornography enters the national market surreptitiously,

feeds the national market, and stimulates demand for child pornography,

demonstrating “the intrastate production and possession of child pornography is an

economic activity connected to interstate commerce”); cf. Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.

Ct. 2195, 2209 (2005).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1152 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2006 Entry ID: 2048285