### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-41211

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TRAVIS HUNTER BLANK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas

Before WIENER, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Travis Hunter Blank (“Blank”) ap p eals his convictions for transporting

child pornography in violation of 18 U. S

. C

. § 2252(a)(1) and (b)(1), and for

possessing child pornography in violation of § 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2). Blank

a sserts that (1) the district court abused its discretion when it dism i s s e d t h e

original indictment without p r e j u dice for violation of the Speedy Trial Act, 18

U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174, (2) there is insufficient evidence to support the jury’s guilty

verdict, and (3) the district c o u r t abused its discretion by allowing the jury to

view several images of child pornography. We AFFIRM. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D

Decem ber 4 , 20 12

Lyle W . Cayce
Clerk Case: 11-41211 Document: 00512072402 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2012No. 11-41211

I.

A v id e o clip d e p ictin g ch ild p o rn o g ra p h y se n t fro m B la n k ’s e -m a il a cco u n t

trig g e re d a n i n v e s t i g a tio n le a d in g to th e issu a n ce o f a w a rra n t to se a rch h is

h o m e

. A t th e tim e th e o ffice rs e x e cu te d th e se a rch w a rra n t, B la n k v o lu n ta rily

sp o k e w ith D e te ctiv e J e ff R ich

. D u rin g th is co n v e rsa tio n , B la n k a d m itte d th a t

h e d o w n lo a d e d ch ild p o rn o g ra p h y to h is co m p u te r a n d th a t h e se n t th e v i d e o

clip d e p ictin g ch ild p o rn o g ra p h y fro m h is e -m a il a cco u n t. H e fu rth e r a d m itte d

th a t h e h a d v i e w e d c h i l d p o rn o g ra p h y fo r th e p a st te n y e a rs. B la n k th e n

co m p le te d a w ritte n sta te m e n t c o n ta in in g th e fo llo w in g a d m issio n : “I h a v e

lo o k e d a t ch ild p o rn o g ra p h y fo r o v e r th e p a st 1 0 y e a rs th ro u g h sp e a k in g to

p e o p le o n A O L in ch a tro o m s. I d o n ’t k e e p a n y im a g e s. I l o o k a n d d e le te

.

Y o u n g e st I’v e se e n m ig h t b e 1 0

. O v e r 1 0 y e a rs, m a y b e I’v e se e n 1 ,0 0 0 p ictu re s.”

B la n k ’s co m p u te rs w e re se ize d

, a n d a fo re n sic e x a m i n a tio n re v e a le d a

to ta l o f tw e n ty -fo u r im a g e s o f ch ild p o rn o g ra p h y , in clu d i n g o n e w h ich

e sta b lish e d th a t th e v id e o clip se n t fro m B la n k ’s e -m a il a cco u n t w a s o n h is

co m p u te r. W h ile B la n k w a s in cu sto d y a w a itin g tria l, se v e ra l o f h is p h o n e ca lls

to fa m ily m e m b e rs w e re re co rd e d a n d w e re a d m itte d in to e v id e n ce a t tria l. In

o n e ca ll, B la n k m u se d th a t if A O L so ftw a re co u ld d e te ct th e a g e o f a p e rso n in

a p h o to g ra p h se n t th ro u g h a n e -m a il, h e “w o u ld h a v e b e e n ca u g h t 1 0 y e a rs a g o ,

n in e y e a rs a g o , e ig h t y e a rs a g o , se v e n y e a rs a g o .” In o th e r ca lls h e sta te d th a t

“I’v e d o n e it b e fo re a n d its n e v e r b e e n ca u g h t” a n d “I h a te to sa y it, b u t I sh o u ld

h a v e b e e n ca u g h t a lo n g tim e a g o .”

A p p ro xi mat el y one mont h in to h is p re tria l d e te n tio n , B la n k to ld o n e o f h is

siste rs th a t h e h a d le a rn e d th a t a n a tto rn e y h a d su cce ssfu lly d e fe n d e d a clie n t

in a ch ild p o rn o g ra p h y ca se b y h a v in g th e d e fe n d a n t b la m e a n o th e r in d iv id u a l

w h o re sid e d in th e d e fe n d a n t’s h o m e

. S h o rtly a fte r th is co n v e rsa ti o n , B la n k

to ld h is o th e r siste r th a t a n E n g lish te e n a g e r (“th e te e n a g e r”) w h o h a d liv e d

2 Case: 11-41211 Document: 00512072402 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2012No. 11-41211

w ith B la n k fo r a p p ro x im a te l y se v e n y e a rs w a s re sp o n sib le fo r th e ch ild 1

p o rn o g ra p h y

. B la n k ’s th e o ry a t tria l w a s th a t th e te e n a g e r w a s re sp o n sib le fo r

th e ch ild p o rn o g ra p h y a n d t h a t B la n k ’s co n fe ssio n s to o ffice rs a n d fa m ily

m e m b e rs w e re m e re ly a tte m p ts to p ro te ct th e te e n a g e r fro m d e p o rta tio n

. 2

O n J u ly 8

, 2 0 0 9

, a p p ro x im a te ly o n e m o n th a fte r h e h a d co n fe sse d to th e

crim e s, B la n k w a s ch a rg e d i n a tw o -co u n t in d ictm e n t w ith tra n sp o rtin g a n d

p o sse ssin g ch ild p o rn o g ra p h y

. H is tria l w a s in itia lly se t fo r J a n u a ry 2 0 1 0

. In

N o v e m b e r a n d D e ce m b e r 2 0 0 9

, B la n k ’s co u n se l file d m o tio n s t o w ith d ra w , to

co n tin u e th e tria l d a te

, a n d to o b t a i n a p sy ch ia tric e x a m in a tio n fo r B la n k

.

T h e se m o tio n s w e re g ra n te d a n d

, p u rsu a n t to B la n k ’s re q u e st, h is in itia l tria l

se ttin g w a s v a ca te d a n d a fin a l p re tria l co n fe re n ce w a s sch e d u le d fo r M a y 1 0

,

2 0 1 0

. A fte r t h e d istrict co u rt fo u n d B la n k co m p e te n t to sta n d tria l in M a rch

2 0 1 0

, h e file d a m o tio n fo r re le a se fro m cu sto d y b e ca u se o f h e a lth p ro b le m s. O n

A p ril 1 4

, 2 0 1 0

, th e d a y a fte r B la n k file d th a t m o tio n , a m a g istra t e j u d g e

o rd e re d h im re le a se d o n co n d itio n o f h o m e d e te n tio n

O n M a y 5

, 2 0 1 0

, B la n k file d a m o tio n to d ism iss fo r v io la tio n o f th e

S p e e d y T ria l A c t

. T h e g o v e rn m e n t re sp o n d e d w ith in tw o d a y s, a g re e in g th a t

th e re w a s a v io la tio n , b u t u rg in g th a t th e d ism issa l b e w ith o u t p re ju d ice . O n

M a y 1 0

, 2 0 1 0

, th e co u rt h e ld a se co n d p re tria l co n fe re n ce a n d to o k B la n k ’s

m o ti o n t o d i sm iss u n d e r a d v ise m e n t. A lm o st te n m o n th s la te r, o n M a rch 3

,

2 0 1 1

, th e d istrict co u rt d ism isse d th e in d ictm e n t w ith o u t p re ju d ice

, e x p la in in g

in p a rt:

G iv e n th e se rio u sn e ss o f t h e c h a rg e d o ffe n se s; th e fa cts a n d

The tee nager, origi nally fr om England, lived wi th Blank (w ho wa s a hock ey coac h and 1

ref ere e) so that he coul d deve lop his hock ey sk ills

. The tee na g e r lived wi th Blank fr om

app roxim atel y 2002 unt il 2009.

It is undi sp uted that the tee nager ret urned to England clos ely fol low ing the execut ion 2

of the se arc h wa rra nt at Blank ’s hom e. The tee nager wa s no longer in the count ry wh en Blank

wa s arres ted a few we ek s later. All conf es sio ns Blank mad e to his fam ily me mbe rs occ urr ed
aft er the tee nager had ret urned t o En gland.

3 Case: 11-41211 Document: 00512072402 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/04/2012No. 11-41211

circu m sta n ce s w h ich le d to th is d ism issa l; th e fa ct th a t a d ism issa l

w ith p re ju d ice w o u ld n e it h e r se rv e a s a d e te rre n t to th e G o v e rn m e n t o r th e co u rt n o r se rv e t h e p u b lic in te re st in b rin g in g th e a ccu se d to tria l; a n d th e fa ct th a t th e re h a s b e e n n o p re ju d ice

to th e D e fe n d a n t fo r w h ich th e G o v e rn m e n t is re sp o n sib le in

co n n e ctio n w ith th is S p e e d y T ria l A ct v io la tio n , th e co u rt d e clin e s
to d ism iss th is ca se w ith p re ju d ice

.

T h e co u rt a ck n o w le d g e s th e te n m o n th d e la y in ru li n g o n th is

m o tio n to d ism iss. T h a t is ce rta in ly n o t th e fa u lt o f th e G o v e rn m e n t, b u t ra th e r is d u e to th e fa ct th a t th e co u rt d id n o t

a tte n d to th is m a tte r a s q u ick ly a s th e co u rt sh o u ld h a v e a tte n d e d

to it.

A w e e k la te r, o n M a rch 1 0

, 2 0 1 1

, B la n k w a s ch a rg e d in a tw o -co u n t in d ictm e n t

b a se d o n th e sa m e u n d e rly in g co n d u ct a s in th e first in d ictm e n t. B la n k file d a

m o tio n to d ism iss th is in d ictm e n t, a lle g in g a v io la tio n o f th e S p e e d y T ria l A ct

a n d a rg u in g th a t th e “clo ck ” co n tin u e d to tick a n d w a s n o t re se t b y th e filin g o f

th e se co n d in d ictm e n t. T h e d istrict co u rt d e n ie d th e m o tio n

. O n J u n e 2 0

, 2 0 1 1

,

B la n k ’s ju ry tria l co m m e n ce d

, a t th e e n d o f w h i c h th e ju ry re tu rn e d a g u ilty

v e rd ict o n b o th co u n ts. B la n k w a s se n te n ce d to 1 2 1 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t o n

co u n t o n e a n d 1 2 0 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t o n co u n t tw o , to b e se rv e d

co n cu rre n tly . T h is a p p e a l fo llo w e d

.

II.

B la n k first ch a lle n g e s th e d istrict co u rt’s d e cisio n to d ism iss th e first

in d ictm e n t w ith o u t p re ju d ice

. B o th p a rtie s a g re e th a t th e d i s t r i ct co u rt 3

co rre ctly d ism isse d th e first in d ictm e n t, b u t d isp u te w h e th e r th e co u rt e rre d in

d ism issin g w ith o u t p r e ju d ice

, w h ich u ltim a te ly a llo w e d fo r a su cce ssfu l

re p ro se cu tio n

.

Blank has not allege d a violat ion of his Sixth Ame ndm ent right to a sp eed y tri a l

. 3

A c cor dingly, we hold that Blank has wa ived any pot enti al Sixth Ame ndm ent viola t i o n t h a t
mi ght have exis ted on thes e fac ts

. See Uni ted States v. Mo li na- Solo ri o , 577 F.3d 300, 304 n.2 (exp lainin g that a “clai m und er the Spee dy Trial Act dif fer s in so me s ignif

icant w ays fr om a

c l a im unde r the Sixth Ame ndm ent sp eed y tri al claus e” (quo ting Uni ted States v. F r y e , 3 7 2
F.3d 729

, 734 (5t h Cir

. 2004) ).

4 Case: 11-41211 Document: 00512072402 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/04/2012No. 11-41211

“ [ T] he dec i s io n w h e th e r to d ism iss a co m p la in t u n d e r th e S p e e d y T ri al Ac t

w ith o r w ith o u t p re ju d ice is e n t r u s t e d to th e so u n d d iscre tio n o f th e d istrict

ju d g e a n d

. . . n o p re fe re n ce is a cco rd e d to e ith e r k in d o f d ism issa l.” U n ited

S ta tes v

. M

elg u izo

, 8 2 4 F .2 d 3 7 0

, 3 7 1 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 7 ) ( i n t e r n a l q u o ta tio n s

o m itte d ). A cco rd in g ly

, w e re v ie w a d istrict co u rt’s d e cisio n to d ism iss a n

in d ictm e n t w ith o u t p re ju d ice fo r n o n co m p lia n ce w ith th e S p e e d y T ria l A ct fo r

a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e tio n

. U n ited S ta tes v

. B lev in s , 1 4 2 F .3 d 2 2 3

, 2 2 5 (5 th C ir.

1 9 9 8 ) (citin g U

n ited S ta tes v . T

a y lo r , 4 8 7 U .S . 3 2 6 , 3 4 2

– 4 3 (1 9 8 8 )).

A d istrict co u rt co n sid e rin g w h e th e r to d ism iss w ith o r w ith o u t p re ju d ice

m u st a d d re ss e a ch o f th e fo llo w in g fa cto rs: (1 ) th e se rio u sn e ss o f th e o ffe n se ; (2 )

th e fa cts a n d circu m sta n ce s w h ich le d to th e d ism issa l; a n d (3 ) th e im p a ct o f a

re p ro se cu tio n o n th e a d m in istra tio n o f t h e S p e e d y T ria l A ct a n d o n th e

a d m in istra tio n o f ju stice

. S ee 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 1 6 2 (a )(2 ).

A

.

B la n k d o e s n o t ch a lle n g e th e d is t r ict co u rt’s co n clu sio n th a t p o sse ssin g

a n d tra n sm ittin g ch ild p o rn o g ra p h y a re se rio u s o ffe n se s. H e a rg u e s, h o w e v e r,

th a t e v e n th o u g h th e ch a rg e d crim e s a r e s e r i o u s, th e “lo w ” n u m b e r o f im a g e s

o f ch ild p o rn o g ra p h y d isco v e re d o n h is co m p u te r d e m o n stra te s th at “ he do e s n o t

fit th e g e n e ra l p ro file o f a ch ild p o rn o g ra p h e r a n d h is a lle g e d v io la tio n s a re n o t

a s se rio u s a s o th e r a lle g e d ch ild p o rn o g ra p h y o ffe n d e rs.” W e d isa g re e

. T w e n ty

fo u r im a g e s o f ch ild p o rn o g ra p h y is n o t su ch a lo w n u m b e r a s to m itig a te th e

se rio u sn e ss o f th e o ffe n se

. Moreover, Blank’s voluntary admission that he had

viewed more than 1000 images over the previous deca d e highlights the

seriousness of his conduct.

B

.

T h e se co n d fa cto r re q u ire s co n sid e ra tio n o f th e fa cts a n d circu m sta n ce s

le a d in g to d ism issa l. N o rm a lly

, th i s fa cto r co n ce rn s th e g o v e rn m e n t’s re a so n

fo r v io la tin g th e S p e e d y T ria l A c t

, a n d

, a cco rd in g ly

, th e b u rd e n is o n th e

5 Case: 11-41211 Document: 00512072402 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/04/2012No. 11-41211

g o v e rn m e n t to e x p la in th e v io la tio n

. S ee, e.g

. , U n ited S ta tes v

. M

a n cia -P erez ,

3 3 1 F .3 d 4 6 4

, 4 6 8 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); B lev in s , 1 4 2 F .3 d a t 2 2 6 (“R e g a rd in g th e fa cts

a n d circu m sta n ce s le a d in g to th e d ism issa l, w e lo o k to w h e th e r th e G o v e rn m e n t

so u g h t th e re su lta n t d e la y s f o r u lte rio r p u rp o se s a s w e ll a s w h e th e r th e

G o v e rn m e n t’s fa ilu re to m e e t d e a d lin e s w a s re p e titi v e , re g u la r, a n d fre q u e n t

w ith re sp e ct to th is d e fe n d a n t

. ” )

. In th is ca se , B la n k co n ce d e s th a t th e

g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t co n trib u te to th e v io la tio n o f th e S p e e d y T ria l A ct a n d th a t

th e sig n ifica n t d e la y d id n o t a llo w th e g o v e rn m e n t to g a in a stra te g ic o r ta ctica l

a d v a n ta g e in th e p ro se cu tio n o f h is ca se

. R a th e r, th e p a rtie s a g re e th a t th e so le

ca u se fo r th e d e la y w a s th e d istrict co u rt’s o v e rcro w d e d d o ck e t. T h is co n clu sio n ,

h o w e v e r, d o e s n o t e n d th e in q u iry

.

D e la y a ttrib u t a b le to th e tria l co u rt, ju st a s d e la y a ttrib u ta b le to th e

g o v e rn m e n t, w e ig h s in fa v o r o f d ism issa l w ith p re ju d ice

. S ee U n ited S ta tes v

.

P eep les , 8 1 1 F .2 d 8 4 9

, 8 5 1 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 7 ) (e x p la in in g th a t “[i]f th e p ro se cu to r

o r th e d istrict co u r t w e re e n tire ly a t fa u lt fo r th e d e la y [,]” th e d e fe n d a n t’s

a rg u m e n ts fo r d ism issa l w ith p re ju d ice w o u ld b e v ie w e d m o re fa v o ra b l y ) ; s e e

a lso U n ited S ta tes v

. R a m irez

, 9 7 3 F .2 d 3 6

, 3 9 (1 st C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (“W h e n a [S p e e d y

T ria l A ct] v io la tio n is ca u se d b y th e co u rt o r th e p ro se cu to r, it w e ig h s in fa v o r

o f g ra n tin g a d ism issa l w ith p re ju d ice .”); U n ited S ta tes v

. S ta

y to n , 7 9 1 F .2 d 1 7

,

1 9

– 2 0 (2 d C ir. 1 9 8 6 ) ( “ T h e S p e e d y T ria l A ct w a s d e sig n e d to e ffe ctu a te th e

in te re sts o f so cie ty in g e n e ra l a n d o f th e d e fe n d a n t in p a rticu la r b y e n su rin g

th a t o u r co u rts m e te o u t sp e e d y ju stice

. T h e p ro se cu to r, d e fe n se co u n se l, a n d

th e co u rt e a ch p la y s a ro le in in su rin g th a t th e in te re sts o f th e p u b lic a n d th e

d e fe n d a n t in a sp e e d y tria l a re p ro te cte d .” (in te rn a l cita tio n o m itte d )). A s th e

S u p re m e C o u rt h a s e x p la in e d

, d e la y a ttrib u ta b le to a “n e u tra l re a so n su ch a s

n e g lig e n ce o r o v e rcro w d e d co u rts s h o u ld b e w e ig h te d le ss h e a v ily b u t

n e v e rth e le ss sh o u ld b e co n sid e re d sin ce th e u ltim a t e r e sp o n sib ility fo r su ch

circu m sta n ce s m u st re st w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t ra th e r th a n w ith th e d e fe n d a n t.”

6 Case: 11-41211 Document: 00512072402 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/04/2012No. 11-41211

B a rk er v

. W

in g o , 4 0 7 U .S

. 5 1 4

, 5 3 1 (1 9 7 2 ); see id

. (co n tra stin g th e se “ n e u t r a l

re a so n s” w ith (1 ) d e lib e ra te a tte m p ts to d e la y a tria l in o rd e r to d isa d v a n ta g e

th e d e fe n d a n t, w h ich sh o u ld b e w e ig h e d h e a v ily a g a in st th e g o v e rn m e n t, a n d

(2 ) “v a lid re a so n s,” su ch a s a m issin g w itn e ss, th a t ju stify d e la y ).

H e re , th e p a rtie s, a s w e ll a s th e d istrict co u rt, a g re e th a t th e so le ca u se

fo r th e v io la tio n o f th e S p e e d y T ria l A ct w a s th a t co u rt’s o v e rcro w d e d d o ck e t. 4

A lth o u g h t h is is a “n e u tra l re a so n ,” it w e ig h s in fa v o r o f d ism issa l w ith

p re ju d ice

.
C

.

T h e fin a l fa cto r th a t m u st b e co n sid e re d

— th e im p a ct o f a re p ro se cu tio n

o n th e a d m in istra tio n o f th e S p e e d y T ria l A ct a n d o n th e a d m in istra tio n o f

ju stice

— e n co m p a sse s th re e co n ce rn s: (1 ) th e d e fe n d a n t’s rig h t to a tim e ly tria l;

( 2) t he po te n tia l d e te rre n t e ffe ct o f a p re ju d icia l d ism issa l o n re p e a te d v iol at i ons

o f th e S p e e d y T ria l A ct; a n d (3 ) th e p u b lic’s in te re st in b rin g in g th e d e fe n d a n t

to tria l. S ee M

a n cia -P erez , 3 3 1 F .3 d a t 4 6 9

. C o u rts m u st a lso co n sid e r th e

p re se n ce o r a b se n ce o f p re ju d ice to th e d e fe n d a n t ca u se d b y th e v io la tio n

. Id

. (citin g T a y lo r , 4 8 7 U .S . a t 3 3 4 ).

A s to th e first co n ce rn , th e re is n o q u e stio n th a t B la n k d id n o t re ce iv e a

tim e ly tria l. A s to th e se co n d co n ce rn , th e g o v e rn m e n t a rg u e s th a t th e re w o u ld

b e n o d e te rre n t e ffe ct o f a p re ju d icia l d ism issa l in th is ca se b e ca u se th e d istrict

co u rt a ck n o w le d g e d th a t th e d e la y w a s so le ly a ttrib u ta b le to its ca se lo a d

. W e

d isa g re e

. A s th e p a rtie s a ck n o w le d g e d a t o ra l a rg u m e n t, crim in a l tria ls in th e

The dis tri ct cour t inexp lica bly too k alm os t ten mo nths to iss ue a brie f fou r- page ord er 4

rulin g on the largely undi sp uted m oti on to dis mi ss

. By the tim e t he dis tri ct co urt iss ued it s rulin g on Mar ch 3, 2011, the tot al del ay wa s 457 days beyond the lim it im pos ed by the Sp eed y Trial Act. In cont ras t to t h e d e l a y p r i o r to the mo tio n to dis mi ss , wh ich wa s at leas t par tly

att ribut able to Blank ’s pr etr ial mo tio ns that requ ired res ched uling of the init ial tri al dat e, the
dis tri ct cour t’s ove rcr ow ded d ock et doe s not excus e a t en- mo nth del ay to iss ue a brief r uling

in a cri mi nal cas e. We are not blind to the burd ens fac ed by the dis tri ct cour t in man aging an

overc row ded doc ke t. As the cour t note d in i ts ord er, it mus t juggle a signi fic ant num ber of

cri mi nal and civil cas es

. Altho ugh d elays att ribut able to an overc row ded doc ke t are unde rs tand able, howe ver, they do not exc use or mini mi ze violati ons of the Speed y Trial Act.

7 Case: 11-41211 Document: 00512072402 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/04/2012No. 11-41211

S h e rm a n D iv isio n a re ro u tin e ly sch e d u le d b e y o n d th e tim e lim its o f th e S p e e d y

T ria l A ct. A cco rd in g ly

, o u r re q u irin g a p re ju d icia l d ism issa l in th is ca se w o u ld

s e n d a stro n g e r m e ssa g e to th e d istrict co u rt th a t it m u st co m p ly w ith th e

re q u ire m e n ts o f th e S p e e d y T ria l A ct. S ee U n ited S ta tes v

. J

o h n so n , 2 9 F .3 d 5

9 4 0

, 9 4 6 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (“Weighing in favor of dismissal with prejudice, we note

that the [Speedy T r i a l] Act was designed to protect a defendant’s right to a

timely trial, and dismissal with prejudice is more likely to cause the government

and the courts diligently t o c o m ply with the Act’s requirements.”); see also

United States v. Caparella

, 716 F.2d 976, 981 (2d Cir. 1983). The third concern, 6

as noted above, weighs in favor of dismissal without prejudice because the public

has a great interest in bringing to trial defendants who have been accused of

committing serious crimes. See Johnson , 29 F.3d at 946.

Finally, we consider whether the violation prejudiced Blank. T h e

S u p re m e C o u rt h a s e x p la in e d :

P re ju d ice

, o f co u rse , sh o u ld b e a sse sse d in th e lig h t o f th e in te re sts

o f d e fe n d a n ts w h ich th e sp e e d y tria l rig h t w a s d e sig n e d to p ro te ct.
T h is C o u rt h a s id e n tifie d th re e su ch in te re sts: (i) to p re v e n t

o p p re ssiv e p re tria l in ca rce ra tio n ; (ii) to m in im ize a n x i e t y a n d

co n ce rn o f th e a ccu se d ; a n d (iii ) to lim it th e p o ssib ility th a t th e d e fe n se w ill b e im p a ire d

. O f th e se , t h e m o s t se rio u s is th e la st,
b e ca u se th e in a b ility o f a d e fe n d a n t a d e q u a te ly to p re p a re h is ca se sk e w s th e fa irn e ss o f th e e n tire sy ste m

.

B a rk er , 4 0 7 U .S . a t 5 3 2

.

W e co n sid e r th e m o st se rio u s t y p e o f p re ju d ice

, i.e.

, th e p o ssib ility th a t

We dis agree wi th the dis tri ct cour t’s st atem ent that “a dis mi ss al wi th pr ejudi ce is not 5

mo re lik ely to caus e t his c ourt t o c om ply wi th the Act. ”

Prejud icia l dis mi ss al in this cas e might enco urage the governm ent to go beyond that 6

wh ich it is req uir ed to do and tak e app rop riat e act ions to enco urage a dis tri ct cour t to sc hedu le
cri mi nal tri als wi thin the Sp eed y Trial Act’ s lim its and to rule tim ely on outs tand ing mo tio ns im pli cat ing sp eed y tri al conc erns

. See Ram ir ez , 973 F.2d at 39 (“ Even t h o u g h a pr os ecut or doe s not bear the burden of mo nito ring the court’ s comp lianc e wi th the [ Sp eed y Trial Act] in
abs ence of an announce d rule , dis tri ct co urt s do look to pros ecut ors for ass ist ance as off icer s of the cour t. ”)

.

8 Case: 11-41211 Document: 00512072402 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/04/2012No. 11-41211

B la n k ’s d e fe n se w a s im p a ire d b y th e su b sta n tia l d e la y e x p e rie n ce d in th is ca se

.
A lth o u g h B la n k cla im s in h is re p ly b rie f th a t th re e w itn e sse s su f f e r e d f r o m 7

m e m o ry lo ss b y th e tim e o f h is tria l, h e h a s fa ile d to d e m o n stra te h o w th e la p se s

in m e m o ry h a rm e d h is d e fe n se

. E v e n if th e w itn e sse s h a d te stifie d a s fu lly a s

B la n k h a d w ish e d

, th a t te stim o n y w o u ld n o t h a v e ca st d o u b t o n th e v e ra city o f

h is co n fe ssio n s. B la n k ’s o th e r cla im s o f p re ju d ice a re a lso u n a v a ilin g b e ca u se

h e h a s fa ile d to e sta b lish a lin k b e tw e e n h is jo b lo ss a n d m e d ica l co n d itio n s a n d

th e v io la tio n o f th e S p e e d y T ria l A ct. 8

D

.
A fte r co n d u ctin g th is su b sta n tiv e re v ie w o f th e d istrict co u rt’s d e cisio n to

p e rm it re p ro se cu tio n , w e a re sa tisfie d th a t th e co u rt d id n o t e rr in d ism issin g

th e in d ictm e n t w ith o u t p re ju d ice . Although this might have been a close case

in the district court, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion

in dismissing the indictment without prejudice, particularly given the

seriousness of the offenses at issue, the absence of any p r osecutorial

gamesmanship or governmental cause of the delay, or any material evidence of

prejudice to Blank’s defense.

III.

B l a n k n e x t ch a lle n g e s th e su fficie n cy o f th e e v id e n ce to u p h o ld h i s

co n v ictio n s. B e ca u se B la n k p ro p e rly p re se rv e d th is a rg u m e n t, o u r re v ie w is d e

n o v o

. U n it e d S t a tes v

. S h u m , 4 9 6 F .3 d 3 9 0

, 3 9 1 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). “In d e cid in g

This cour t genera lly wi ll not cons ide r an iss ue rais ed for the fir st tim e in a rep ly brie f. 7
See, e. g. , Uni ted States v. Rodr igue z , 602 F.3d 346

, 360 (5t h Cir

. 2010)

. N evert heles s, given
the s i g nifi cant del ay in this cas e, we add res s this cont enti on to ens ure that any pot enti al

pr ejudi ce to Blank ’s d efe nse is c ons ide red

.

The rec ord indi cat es that Blank wa s no longer em plo yed at the t i me he wa s fir st 8

arr es ted —ac cor dingly, the violat ion had no im pac t on his los s of em plo ymen t. The rec ord als o is clea r that Blank wa s r e l e a s e d fr om pr etr ial det enti on one day aft er he fil ed a mo tio n for

rele ase —w hich wa s a few we ek s bef ore he a s s e r t e d his right to a sp eed y tri al—s o that he

wo uld be able “to acc es s his pr ivate phys icia ns and hos pit als in o r d er [t o] have a mo re thor ough diagno sis and t reat me nt regim en. ”

9 Case: 11-41211 Document: 00512072402 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/04/2012No. 11-41211

w h e th e r t h e e v id e n ce w a s su fficie n t, w e re v ie w a ll e v id e n ce in th e lig h t m o st

fa v o ra b le to th e v e rd ict to d e te rm in e w h e th e r a ra tio n a l trie r o f fa ct co u ld h a v e

fo u n d th a t th e e v id e n ce e sta b lish e d t he es se n tia l e le m e n ts o f th e o ffe n se b e y o n d

a re a so n a b le d o u b t.” Id

.

B la n k d o e s n o t co n te n d that t h e e v id e n ce w a s in su fficie n t to e sta b lish a n y

e sse n tia l e le m e n t o f th e o ffe n se s ch a rg e d

— ra th e r, h e cla im s o n ly th a t th e

e v id e n ce p re se n te d “g iv e s e q u a l circu m sta n tia l su p p o rt to th e p o ssib ility ” th a t

th e te e n a g e r w a s re sp o n sib le fo r th e ch ild p o rn o g ra p h y , a n d th a t th e ju ry co u ld

n o t re a so n a b ly e x clu d e th is a lte rn a tiv e th e o ry w ith o u t sp e cu la tio n

. B la n k

re lie s o n t h i s c o u r t ’s d e cisio n in U n ited S ta tes v

. M

o rela n d

, 6 6 5 F .3 d 1 3 7 (5 th

C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). In M

o rela n d

, t h i s co u rt e x p la in e d th a t “[w ]h e n th e g o v e rn m e n t

se e k s to p ro v e co n stru ctiv e p o sse ssio n o f co n tra b a n d fo u n d in a jo in tly o ccu p ie d

lo ca tio n , it m u st p re se n t a d d itio n a l e v id e n ce o f th e d e fe n d a n t’s k n o w i n g

d o m in io n o r co n tro l o f th e co n tra b a n d

, b e sid e s th e m e re jo in t o ccu p a n cy o f th e

p re m ise s, in o rd e r to p ro v e th e d e fe n d a n t’s co n stru ctiv e p o sse ssio n .” Id

. a t 1 5 0

.
A t tria l, B la n k ’s th e o ry o f th e ca se w a s th a t th e te e n a g e r, w h o a lso u se d

th e co m p u te r o n w h ich i m a g e s o f ch ild p o rn o g ra p h y w e re fo u n d

, w a s

re sp o n sib le fo r th e im a g e s. T h is ig n o re s th e o v e rw h e lm in g co n tra ry e v id e n ce

o ffe re d b y th e g o v e rn m e n t a t tria l. S p e cifica lly

, in o ra l a n d w ritte n sta te m e n ts

to D e t e c t i v e R ich

, B la n k h a d a d m itte d th a t h e w a s g u ilty o f th e ch a rg e d

o ffe n se s a n d th a t h e h a d b e e n v ie w in g ch ild p o rn o g ra p h y fo r y e a rs. B la n k h a d

m a d e sim ila r a d m issio n s to se v e ra l fa m ily m e m b e rs w h ile h e w a s in ca rce ra te d

a w a itin g tria l. A lth o u g h B la n k te stifie d a t tria l th a t h e h a d b e e n ly in g to th e

p o lice a n d fa m ily to p ro te ct th e te e n a g e r, th e ju ry co u ld p ro p e rly ch o o se w h ich

o f B la n k ’s re n d itio n s o f th e fa cts w a s m o re cre d ib le

. Viewed in the light most 9

Mo reo ver, given the tot alit y of t he evide nce off ere d at tri al, it is unlik ely that any 9

rat ional tri er of fac t wo uld have fou nd Blank ’s att em pt t o p i n t h e cri me on the tee nager

cre dibl e. As an exam pl e o f the man y inco nsi st enci es in Blank ’s theo ry, Blank cont inued to
adm it to the off

ens es we ll aft er the tee nager had ret urned to England and dep ort atio n wa s no

10 Case: 11-41211 Document: 00512072402 Page: 10 Date Filed: 12/04/2012No. 11-41211

favorable to the verdict, the evidence is sufficient for a rational t r i e r of fact to

conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Blank possessed and transported child

pornography.

IV.

Blank’s final contention is that the district court abused its discretion by

admitting two exhibits of child pornography after Blank offered to stipulate 1 0

that the material was child pornography. That claim is foreclosed by this court’s

d e c i s i on in United States v. Caldwell

, 586 F.3d 338 (5th Cir. 2009). In 1 1

Caldwell

, w e e xplained that “child pornography is graphic evidence that has

force beyond simp l e linear schemes of reasoning. It comes together with the

remaining evidence to form a narrative to gain momentum to suppor t jurors’

inferences regarding the defendant’s guilt.” Id. at 343. Accordingly, we found

that this type of evidence falls under the general rule described by the Supreme

Court in Old Chief v. United Sta t e s , 5 1 9 U

. S. 172 (1997), i.e.

, that “the

prosecution is entitled to p r o v e its case free from any defendant’s option to

s t ipulate the evidence away

. . . .” 519 U.S. at 189. W e co n clu d e t h a t t h e 1 2

l onger a conc ern. Also

, ins tead of me rely adm itt ing that he se nt the e-m ail and th a t a n y im ages on the com put er we re his

, B l a n k adm itt ed to ten years of view ing over a thou san d

im ages of

c hild p orno grap hy. This ad mi ss ion is inco nsi st ent w ith a des ire me rely to pr ote ct
the tee nager, w ho had been living wi th Blank f or only six years

.

The jury wa s sho wn one video and five im ages of child por nograp hy out of the tw enty- 1 0

fou r im ages f

ound on Blan k’ s com put er.

Blank ’s att em pt to dis tinguis h Cal dw el l is unavaili ng. It is tru e t h at Blank ’s 1 1

pr off ere d st ipul atio n wa s broa der than the st ipul atio n at iss ue in Cal dw el l beca use Blank als o

o f fer ed to st ipul ate that anyone view ing the im ages wo uld im me diat ely kn ow that t h e y
cont ained child por nograp hy. This dis tinc tio n, how ever, wa s not cent ral to the cour t’s

reas oning in Cal dw el l and thus fai ls to pr ovide sup por t for Blank ’s argum ent. See Cal dw el l

, 586 F.3d at 343

.

The Sup rem e Court in Ol d Chie f det erm ined that the dis tri ct cour t had abus ed its 1 2

dis cre tio n in adm itt ing the def enda nt’ s rec ord of convic tio n rat her than allow ing a st ipul atio n
to convic t st atus

. 519 U. S. at 191–92. The Court dis tinguis hed that cas e fr om othe rs , lik e this

one, in whic h the pro se cut or se ek s to off er evidence conce rning the inst ant of fen se for w hich

the def enda nt is being tri ed. See id.

11 Case: 11-41211 Document: 00512072402 Page: 11 Date Filed: 12/04/2012No. 11-41211

d istrict co u rt d id n o t a b u s e i t s d iscre tio n b y a d m ittin g th e im a g e s o f ch ild

p o rn o g ra p h y d isco v e re d o n B la n k ’s co m p u te r, w h i c h h e w a s ch a rg e d w ith

p o sse ssin g a n d tra n sp o rtin g

.
A F F IR M E D

.

12 Case: 11-41211 Document: 00512072402 Page: 12 Date Filed: 12/04/2012