United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-2552

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Dennis Gale Chase

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul

____________

 Submitted: February 15, 2013

 Filed: June 25, 2013

[Published]

____________

Before SMITH, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Appellant Dennis Chase of three counts of transportation of

child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1), (b)(1) and three counts of

possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), (b)(2). 
On appeal, Chase argues that the district court improperly denied his motion to 1

suppress because there was insufficient probable cause to support the initial warrant

to search his residence. Chase also claims that the district court’s denial of an

entrapment-defense jury instruction deprived him of his due process right to a fair

trial. Finally, Chase argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his

convictions and that his sentence was unreasonable. We address, and reject, each

claim in turn. 

First, we hold that sufficient probable cause supported the search warrant. 

Chase argues specifically that the warrant failed to establish a nexus between the

items to be seized—child pornography—and the location to be searched—Chase’s

residence. We reject this argument because "[t]he observation that images of child

pornography are likely to be hoarded by persons interested in those materials in the

privacy of their homes is supported by common sense and the cases." United States

v. Hyer, 498 F. App'x. 658, 660–61 (8th Cir. 2013) (alteration in original) (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted).

Second, we reject Chase’s claim that the district court's refusal to instruct the

jury on the entrapment defense violated his due process right to a fair trial. “We

review the district court's denial of a proffered legal defense de novo.” United States

v. Young, 613 F.3d 735, 743 (8th Cir. 2010). “To the extent that the district court's

legal conclusion regarding whether [Chase’s] defense theory accurately reflected the

law was based on factual findings, we review for clear error." Id. at 744. Here, the

district court properly held that there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury

to find entrapment. See id. at 746 ("[A] defendant is entitled to an entrapment

instruction only where 'there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Janie S.

Mayeron, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-
could find entrapment.'" (quoting Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 62 (1988)). 

Chase presented no evidence to show that the government induced him, and the

evidence established that Chase was predisposed to commit the offense. See

Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63 ("[A] valid entrapment defense has two related elements:

government inducement of the crime, and a lack of predisposition on the part of the

defendant to engage in the criminal conduct.").

Third, we conclude that the district court properly denied Chase's motion for

judgment of acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence. Chase argues that the

district court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of entrapment

meant that the evidence presented to the jury was not constitutionally sufficient to

justify a conviction. Because we determined that the entrapment instruction was

properly denied, this argument has no merit. Further, the district court properly

determined that sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict. United States v.

Wells, 646 F.3d 1097, 1102 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review).

Finally, we reject Chase’s claims regarding his sentence. Chase challenges his

sentence on two grounds. First, he challenges a five-level enhancement under U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual Section 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) for "distribution [of child

pornography] for the receipt, or expectation of receipt, of a thing of value, but not for

pecuniary gain." The government argues that this enhancement is proper because

Chase distributed child pornography on a file-sharing network with the expectation

of receiving child pornography in return. "[W]hether a defendant qualifies for the

five-level enhancement must be decided on a case-by-case basis, with the government

bearing the burden of proving that the defendant expected to receive a thing of

value—child pornography—when he used the file-sharing network to distribute and

access child pornography files." United States v. Bastian, 603 F.3d 460, 466 (8th Cir.

2010) (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "The

government can meet its burden with direct evidence, such as an admission by the

defendant that he knew he was using a file-sharing network, and could download files

-3-
from others who could download files from him." Id. Once the government meets

this burden, a defendant must "show 'concrete evidence' of his ignorance as to

distribution in order to defeat a finding with respect to distribution." United States

v. Dolehide, 663 F.3d 343, 347–48 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Dodd,

598 F.3d 449, 452 (8th Cir. 2010)). In this case, the government met its burden by

presenting evidence that Chase knew he was using a file-sharing network. Chase

failed to provide concrete evidence of his ignorance as to distribution. Further, the

government established that Chase expected to—or did—receive a thing of value in

exchange for distributing child pornography. See id. (stating that a defendant

expected to receive a thing of value "by virtue of the fact of sharing (uploading) and

receiving (downloading)shared images via the file-sharing network"). Therefore, the

five-level enhancement was proper.

Chase also claims that the sentence imposed is greater than necessary to

achieve the objectives under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Specifically, Chase argues that the

district court did not give enough consideration to his age, his need to care for his

ailing mother, and his health problems. However, the district court considered these

factors, but determined a 292-month sentence was appropriate considering the

seriousness of the offense, the lack of remorse and regret exhibited by Chase, his

criminal history, and various other factors. The district court's presumptively

reasonable sentence—which was at the bottom of the calculated guideline

range—does not constitute an abuse of discretion. United States v. Feemster, 572

F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review).

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

____________________________

-4-