# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 2- 25 52

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Den ni s Gal e Ch as e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 15 , 20 13 Fil ed : J un e 2 5, 2 01 3 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re SM ITH, MELLOY, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

A jury co nv ic te d App el la nt Den ni s Ch as e of th ree co un ts of tra ns po rta ti on of
ch il d po rn og rap hy in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 1)
, (b )(1 ) an d th ree co un ts of

po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy in vi ol at i o n o f 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 4) (B), (b )(2 ).On ap pe al
, Ch as e arg ue s th at t h e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y de ni ed hi s m ot io n to 1

su pp res s be cau se th ere was in su ffi ci en t pr ob ab le cau se to su pp or t th e in it ia l warra nt

t o s e arch hi s res id en ce. Ch as e al so cl ai m s th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni a l o f a n

e n tra pm en t-d efen se jury in st ru ct io n de pr iv ed hi m of hi s du e pr oc es s rig ht to a f a i r tri al

. Fi na ll y , Ch as e arg ue s th at th ere was in su f f i c i en t ev id en ce to su pp or t hi s

co nv ic ti on s an d th at hi s se nt en ce was un reas on ab le

. W e ad d r e s s , a n d reject
, each
cl ai m in tu rn

.

Fi rs t, we ho ld th at su ffi ci en t pr ob ab le cau se su pp or t e d t h e se arch warra nt

. Ch as e arg ue s sp eci fic al ly th at th e warra nt fai le d to es ta bl is h a n e xu s be twee n th e it em s to be se iz ed

—ch il d po rn og rap hy—an d th e lo cat io n to b e se arch ed —Ch as e’s

res id en ce. W e reject th is arg um en t be cau se "[t ]he ob se rv at io n th at im ag es of ch il d

po rn og rap hy are li ke ly to be ho ard ed by pe rs on s in te res te d in th os e m at eri al s in th e
pr iv acy of th ei r ho m es is su pp or te d by co m m on se ns e an d th e cas es ." Uni te d St at es

v. Hy er, 49 8 F. App 'x. 65 8, 66 0– 61 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (ci ta ti on

an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Seco nd
, we reject Ch as e’s cl ai m th at th e di st ric t co ur t's refu sa l to in st ru ct th e jury on th e en tra pm en t de fen se vi ol at ed hi s du e pr oc es s rig ht to a fai r t r i a l

. “ W e

rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of a pr of fere d le ga l de fen se de no vo .” Uni te d St at es

v. You ng , 61 3 F.3 d 73 5, 74 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). “ To th e ex te nt th at th e di st ric t co ur t's
le ga l co nc lu si on reg ard in g whe th er [Ch as e’s] de fen se th eo ry accu rat el y refl ect ed th e la w was b as ed on fact ua l fi nd in gs , we rev ie w fo r cl ear erro r." Id

. at 74 4. Here , th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y he ld th at th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r a reas on ab le jury

to fin d en tra pm en t. See id

. at 74 6 ("[ A] de fen da nt is e n t it le d to an en tra pm en t i n s t ru ct io n on ly whe re 'th ere is su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fro m whi ch a reas on ab le ju r y

The Hon or ab le Jo hn R. Tun he im
, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Mi nn es ot a, ad op ti ng th e Rep or t an d Rec om m en da ti on of th e Hon or ab le Ja ni e S. Mayeron , Uni te d S ta te s M ag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.
-2

-co ul d fin d en tra pm en t.'" (q uo ti ng Mat he ws v. Uni te d St at es , 48 5 U.S. 58
, 62 (1 98 8) ).

Ch as e pr es en te d no ev id en ce to sh ow t h a t th e go ve rn m en t in du ced hi m , an d th e

ev i d e n c e e st ab li sh ed th at Ch as e was pr ed is po se d to co m m it th e of

fen se

. See
Mat he ws, 48 5 U.S. at 63 ("[ A] va li d en tra pm en t de fen se ha s two r e l a t e d e le m en ts :
go ve rn m en t in du cem en t of the cri m e, an d a la ck of pr ed is po si ti on on th e pa rt of th e de fen da nt to en ga ge in th e cri m in al co nd uc t." ).

Thi rd , we co nc lu de th at th e d is tri ct co ur t p ro pe rly den ie d C ha se 's m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al ba se d on th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce. Ch as e arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co u r t ’s r e f

u sa l to in st ru ct th e jury on th e affi rm at iv e de fen se of en tra pm en t

m ean t th at th e ev id en ce pr es en te d to th e jury was no t co ns ti tu ti on al ly su ffi ci en t to jus ti fy a co nv ic ti on

. Bec au se we de te rm in ed th at th e en tra pm en t in st ru c t i on was
p r o p e r ly de ni ed
, th is arg um en t ha s no m eri t. Fu rth er, th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y de te rm i n e d t ha t su ffi ci en t ev id en ce su pp or ts th e jury's ve rd ic t. Uni te d St at es v. W el ls , 64 6 F .3d 10 97 , 11 02 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) (st an da rd of r ev ie w).

Fi na ll y , we reject Ch as e’s cl ai m s reg ard in g hi s se nt en ce. Ch as e ch al le ng es hi s

se nt en ce o n t wo g ro un ds

. Fi rs t, he chal le ng es a fiv e-l ev el en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.
Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l Sect io n 2G2 .2( b ) ( 3) (B) fo r "d is tri bu ti on [o f ch il d

po rn og rap hy] fo r th e rece ip t, or ex pe ct at io n of rece ip t, of a th in g of va lu e, bu t no t fo r
pe cu ni ary ga in ." The go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at th is en ha nc em en t is pr op er be cau se Ch as e di st rib ut ed ch il d po rn og rap hy on a fil e-s ha rin g net wor k with th e ex pe ct at io n of rece iv i n g c h i l d po rn og rap hy in ret ur n. "[W] he th er a de fen da nt qu al ifi es fo r th e fiv e-l ev el en ha

nc em en t m

us t be de ci de d on a cas e-b y -cas e ba si s, wit h th e go ve rn m en t be ari ng th e bu rd en of pr ov in g th at th e de f e n d a n t e x p e ct ed to rece iv e a th in g of

va lu e—c hi ld po rn og rap hy—whe n he us ed th e fil e-s ha rin g ne two rk to di st rib ut e an d

acce ss ch il d po rn og rap hy fil es ." Uni te d St at es v. Bas ti an , 60 3 F.3 d 46 0, 46 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (ci ta ti on an d in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. "Th e
go ve rn m en t can m ee t i t s b u r d en wit h di rect ev id en ce, su ch as an ad m is si on by th e de fen da nt th at he kn ew he was us in g a fil e-s ha rin g ne two rk
, an d co ul d do wnl oa d fil es

-3

-fro m ot he rs who co ul d do wnl oa d fil es fro m hi m

. " Id

. Onc e th e go ve rn m en t m eet s

t h i s b u r d en , a de fen da nt m us t "s ho w 'co nc ret e ev id en ce' of hi s ig no ran ce as t o di st rib ut io n in or de r to de feat a fin di ng wit h res pe ct to di st rib ut io n." Uni te d S ta te s v. Do le hi de , 66 3 F.3 d 34 3, 34 7– 48 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) (qu ot in g Un it ed Sta te s v . Dod d,
59 8 F.3 d 44 9, 45 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )). In th is cas e, th e go ve rn m en t m et it s bu rd en by

pr es en ti ng ev id en ce th at Ch as e k n e w h e was us in g a fil e-s ha rin g ne two rk

. Ch as e fai le d t o p ro vi de co nc ret e ev id en ce o f hi s i gn or an ce as to di st rib ut io n. Fu rth er, t he

go ve rn m en t es ta bl is he d th at Ch as e ex pe ct ed to —o r di d— rece iv e a th in g of va lu e in

ex ch an ge fo r di st rib ut in g ch il d po rn og rap hy. See id

. (s ta ti ng th at a de fen da nt

ex pe ct ed to rece iv e a th in g of va lu e "b y vi rtu e of th e fact of sh ari ng (u pl oa di ng ) an d

rece iv in g (d own lo ad in g) sh ared im ag es vi a th e fi le -sha rin g ne two rk "). The refo re, th e fiv e-l ev el en ha nc em en t was pro pe r.

Ch as e al so cl ai m s th at th e se nt en ce im po se d is gr eat er th an ne ces sa ry to ach ie ve th e ob

jecti ve s un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Sp eci fic al ly, Ch as e arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t gi ve en ou gh co ns id erat io n t o h is ag e, hi s ne ed to care fo r hi s ai li ng m ot he r, an d hi s he al th pr ob le m s. Howev er, th e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered th es e fact or s, bu t de te rm in ed a 29 2- m on th s e n te nc e was ap pr op ria te co ns id eri ng th e

se rio us ne ss of th e of

fen se , th e la ck of re mo r s e a n d reg ret ex hi bi te d by Ch as e, hi s

c r i mi n a l hi st or y , an d va rio us ot he r fact or s. The di st ric t co ur t's pr es um pt iv el y

reas on ab le se nt en ce— whi ch was at th e bo tt om o f th e cal cu la te d gu id el in e

ran ge —d oe s no t co ns ti tu te an ab us e of di s c r e t i on

. Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2
F.3 d 4 55 , 46 1 (8 th Cir . 20 09 ) (s ta nd ard of r ev ie w).

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-