T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of * t he ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s ; nevert hel es s , an or derm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly13,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, N o. 05- 1320 v . (D . o f C o lo .) RO G ER CL A PP,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D . C. N o. 04 - CR - 19 2- S)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , HA RTZ , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. ** D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t R o g e r C lap p a p p e a ls h is c o n v ictio n fo r k n o w in g ly rec eivin g ch il d p o rno g rap h y . H e c lai m s the ev iden ce w as n o t sufficien t fo r a jury t o fi n d h i m g u i l t yo f

t h i s c h a r g e . W e d i s a g r e e a n d AFF I RM .

I . Backg r ound I ns pect orFr ank G r aham, an under coveragentfort he U . S. Post al I ns pect i on2

Ser vi ce, pos t ed an a dvert i s ementon the I nt ernetoffe r i ng vi deot apes of chi l dr en e n g a g e d in e x p licit se x u a l ac tiv iti e s. C lap p re sp o n d e d to th is a d v e rtise m e n t, re q u e stin g sp e c ific typ e s o f c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y . G ra h a m c o n firm e d th a t h e c o u ld p ro v id e su c h d e p ictio n s, a n d o n Ja n u a ry1 7 , 2 0 0 4 , C lap p o rd e re d v ia e m a il s ever al vi deot apes cont ai ni ng t he s peci fi c depi ct i ons he had r eques t ed. I n the s ame em ai l , C l app as ked abouts hi ppi ng cos t s . G r aham r es ponded thats hi ppi ng w as i ncl uded and a s ked C l app t o not i fyhi m w hen paym entw as s ent . C l app s ent an emai l t hatday , s ay i ng a che ck had be en s entas i ns truct ed. G r aham r ece i ved the c h ec k six d ay s lat er. T he nextday , J anuary24, G r aham se ntC l app an e m ai l m es s age thats t at ed: “R oger , I goty ourchec k. I tarr i ved the s ame daythatI l eftt o vi s i tm ys on and w i fe i n A r i zona. I had t o getoutof thi s col d fora l i t t l e w hi l e. A s s oon as I get back I ’ l l gety ouror derr eadyand e- m ai l y ou w hen i t ’ s s hi pped. ” V ol . I I , Pg. 66–67. T hi s m es s age w as s entt o pr ovi de t i m e forG r aham t o i nvol ve otherpos t al i n s p e c t o r s i n a c o n t r o l l e d d e l i v e ry. O n F eb rua ry6 , 2 0 0 4 , an o ther p o stal insp ec tor p o sing as a let ter carrier, del i ver ed a pa ckage cont ai ni ng fourvi deot apes t o C l app athi s hom e. T he i ns pect ori nt ent i onal l yhanded the pac kage t o C l app i n s uch a w aythatC l app w as abl e t o r ead the addr es s l abel fora fe w s econds befor e as ki ng w hetherhe nee ded t o s i gn fort he pac kage. T he r eturn addr es s l abel w as the s ame addr es s t o w hi ch C l a p p h a d p r e v i o u s l y s e n tt h e c h e c k fo rth e c h i l d p o rn o g r a p h y.3

A boutt w enty - fi ve mi nut es aft erC l app had a cce pt ed the pac kage, pos t al i ns pect or s obt ai ned and e xecut ed a w arr anton C l app’ s hom e. O ffi cer s knocked on t he door , and w hen C l app ans w er ed, he appe ar ed di s hevel ed, w i th hi s bel tand pant s zi pperundone. O ffi cer s i m m edi at el ydi s cover ed the fourt apes , eac h of w h ich h ad b ee n ad v an ce d , an d o n e o f w h ich w as p lay ing at th at t im e o n C lapp ’s V C R . C l app admi t t ed he ha d al r eadyw at ched a bi tof ea ch t ape. D ur i ng the sea rch , o fficers se ized ab u n d an t evid en ce o f c h il d p o rno g rap h yfro m C lapp ’s h o m e . O ffi cer s t ook C l app t o t he pol i ce s t at i on and i nt ervi ew ed hi m . A tone poi nt C l app w as as ked w her e he ha d got t en the fourt apes ati s s ue, t o w hi ch he r epl i ed, “The addr es s i s on t he box. ” V ol . I I I , Pg. 276. B a s e d o n th e s e e v e n ts , C la p p w a s in d ic te d in a th re e -c o u n t in d ic tm e n t. Co u n tI c h a r g e d h i m wi t h p o s s e s s i o n o f c h i l d p o rn o g r a p h y , 1 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 2 A (a )( 2 )( A ); C o u n t I I a lle g e d re c e ip t o f c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y , i d. § 2252A ( a) ( 5) ( B ) ; and C ountI I I s oughtfor fei tur e of pe r s onal pr opertyus ed i n t he comm i s s i on of thes e cr i m es . C l app pl eade d gui l tyt o C ount s I and I I I buts ought a benc h t r i al on C ountI I . T he di s tr i ctcourtfound hi m gui l tyof C ountI I and s ent ence d hi m t o 60 m ont hs i n pr i s on, the mi ni m um s ent ence al l ow ed bythe s t atut e of c onvi ct i on. II . A n a ly sis C l app ar gues onl yt hathi s convi ct i on on C ountI I w as notes t abl i s hed byC lapp o ri g inallyraised a c o n sti tuti o n al ch all en g e to th e m an d atory 1 m in im u m , b u t h e h a s w ith d ra w n th a t ar g u m e n t. 4 t he evi dence , s peci fi cal l y , t hatt he governm entfai l ed t o es t abl i s h thathe kn o w in g ly r ece i ved t he chi l d por nogr aphy . W e r evi ew de novo a c l ai m t hatt he 1 e v id e n c e w a s in s u ffic ie n t to c o n v ic t. Uni t ed Stat es v. Nels on , 383 F. 3d 1227, 1229 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) . “Evi dence i s s uffi ci entt o s uppor ta convi ct i on i f a r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d fi nd t he defendantgui l tybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , gi ven t he di r ectand ci r cumst ant i al evi dence , al ong w i th r eas onabl e i nfer ence s t her efr om , t aken i n a l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the governm ent . ” Id. A ti s s ue her e i s w hethert he evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o pr ove thatC l app “know i ngl yr ece i ve[d] . . . anychi l d pornogr aphyt hathas been mai l ed, or s hi pped ort r ans por t ed i n i nt er s t at e orfor ei gn comm er ce byanym eans . ” 18 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 2 A (a )( 2 )( A ). C la p p c h a lle n g e s th e e v id e n c e o f h is m e n ta l s ta te . B eca us e the emai l G r aham se nton J anuary24, 2000, had i nform ed hi m t hatt he s hi pm entw oul d be del ay ed and thatanotheremai l w oul d pr ece de s hi ppi ng, C l app cl ai m s t hati n t he abs ence of s uch an e m ai l , he di d notknow t hi s packa ge c o n ta in e d th e c h ild p o rn o g ra p h yh e h a d o rd e re d . W e d isag ree . H is em ail s sp ec ifi ca ll yreq u est ce rt ain d ep ict ion s o f h ard co re chil d p ornog raphy . Iti s und i sputed that he ordered the m at eri al s fr om t he ad dress w r i t t en on the pac kage a nd had t i m e t o r ead the addr es s l abel befor e he a cce pt ed d e liv e ry.5

Ad d i t i o n a l l y , t h e r e c o r d r e fl e c t s th a tth i s tr a n s a c t i o n wa s n o tth e o n l yt i me C l app pur chas ed chi l d por nogr aphyoverthe I nt ernett o be del i ver ed thr ough the m ai l . C oupl ed w i t h t he otherevi dence of chi l d pornogr aphyfound i n hi s hous e, th e s e fa c ts s u p p o rt th e fin d in g th a t h e k n e w th is p a c k a g e w a s m o re o f th e s a m e . A lth o u g h th e c o u rt w a s n o t obl igat ed to m a k e th e fin d in g it d id , itw a s c e rta in ly j us t i f i ed i n doi ng s o. I I I . C oncl usi on In li g h t of

thes e fac ts, w e c o n clud e the ev iden ce w as su ffici en t t o su p p o rt Cl a p p ’ s c o n v i c t i o n fo rr e c e i p to f c h i l d p o rn o g r a p h ya n d AFF I RM .

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge