# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 12 09

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

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.

Tim ot hy DeFog gi

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 Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 19 , 20 15

Fil ed : Oct ob er 6 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , BEAM an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Tim ot hy DeFo gg i was co nv ic te d of m ul ti p le ch il d po rn og rap hy-rela te d

of fen se s fo ll owi ng a jury tri al

. On ap p e a l, he ch al le ng es se ve ral pr et ria l an d tri al

ru li ng s, arg ue s th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t hi s co nv ic ti on s, an d as se rts

hi s 30 0- m on th se nt en ce was im po se d in vi ol at io n of th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. W e

affi rm in pa rt a nd rev ers e in pa rt.I. Ba ck gr ou nd

The FBI be ga n an in ve st ig at i o n i n 20 12 in to a co m pu te r se rv er in Bel le vu e,

Neb ras ka

, th at was ho st in g chi ld -p or no gr ap hy web si te s on th e “ Tor” ne two rk

. The

To r n e two rk is de si gn ed to ke ep a us er’s id en ti ty an on y m ou s by req ui rin g sp ec i a l

s o f t w are th at ob sc ur es a us er’s ph y si cal lo cat io n. The ne two rk ro ut e d

co m m un ic at io ns th ro ug h a ne two rk of ot he r co mp u te rs , m ak in g tra di ti on al IP

id en ti fic at io n te ch ni qu es in effe ct iv e. One of th e ho st ed web si te s was cal le d

“ Ped oB oo k.” The web s i t e op erat ed fro m Mar ch 20 12 un ti l Decem be r 20 12

, ad ve rti si ng an d di st rib ut in g ch il d po rn og rap hy an d h o s ti ng di sc us si on s ab ou t th e

se xu al ab us e of ch il dr en

. On Nov em be r 18

, 20 12

, th e FBI se iz ed th e co m pu te r se rv er

ho st in g Ped oB oo k, bu t co nt in ue d to o p e r a te th e web si te fo r in ve st ig at or y pu rp os es

un ti l sh ut ti ng it do wn co m pl et el y on Decem

be r 8, 20 12

. As pa rt of th is in ve st ig at io n,

th e FBI ob ta in ed an or de r fro m th e Uni te d St at es D i s t r i c t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of

Neb ras ka al lo win g it to m on it or el ect ro ni c co m m un ic at io ns of Ped oB oo k us ers

. Bo th

be fo re an d aft er it s se iz ur e b y l a w en fo rcem en t, ag en ts vi ewed

, ex am in ed

, an d

do cu m en te d th e co nt en t s of Ped oB oo k, whi ch co nt ai ne d th ou sa nd s of ph ot os an d

vi de os de pi ct in g i m ag es of c hi ld po rn og rap hy.

Ped oB o o k ha d ov er 8,1 00 m em be rs , each reg is te red wit h a us ern am e an d

pa ss wor d. Onc e reg is te red

, a m em be r c o u l d se t up a pr of

il e wit h a pi ct ur e, co ul d

req ue st a c c e s s t o pr iv at e gr ou ps , an d co ul d us e a m es sa ge s feat ur e no t av ai la bl e to

ot he r us ers

. Mem

be rs wit h pr of

il es w e r e a bl e to se t up gr ou ps ba se d on sp eci fic

in te res ts an d s ub cat eg or ie s fo r po st in g d is ti nc t t y pe s o f ch il d p or no gr ap hy.

Tim ot hy DeFo gg i, th e fo rm er act in g di r e c t or of cy be r se cu rit y at th e Uni te d

St at es Dep art m en t of Heal th an d Hum an Serv ic es , was a reg is te red m em be r an d us er

of Ped oB oo k. He us ed th e us ern am e “ fu ck ch ris t” an d th e di sp la y na m e “ Pt as se at er.”

He reg is te red on Mar ch 2, 2012. DeFo gg i an d ot he r Ped oB oo k m em be rs oc cas io na ll y

sh ared pe rs on al in fo rm at io n, in cl ud in g e-m ai l ad dr es se s, in pr iv at e m es sa ge s so th ey

-2

-co ul d co m

m un ic at e wit h ot he r Ped oB oo k m em be rs an d di st rib ut e ch il d po rn og rap hy

on a on e-t o- on e ba si s. Evi de nc e sh owe d th at DeFo gg i joi ne d 32 gr ou ps on Ped oB oo k

be twee n Mar ch 2, 20 12

, an d Decem be r 8, 20 12

. B e t w e e n A pr il 19

, 20 12

, an d

Decem be r 5, 2 01 2, he exch an ge d nu m ero us pr iv at e m es sa ge s with ot he r Ped oB oo k

m em be rs ex pr es si ng , am on g ot he r th in gs , an in te res t in th e rap e an d m ur de r of in fan ts

an d t od dl ers

.

DeFo gg i m ov ed to su pp r e s s e v i de nc e ob ta in ed th ro ug h th e in te rcep ti on of

el ect ro ni c co m

m un ic at io ns an d ev id en ce ob ta in ed du rin g a se arch of hi s res id en ce.

He al so m ov ed to pr ecl ud e th e go ve rn m en t fro m in tro du ci ng at tri al wha t he te rm ed

“ fan ta sy ch at pr iv at e m es sa ge s” se nt to an d fro m hi s us ern am e, arg ui ng th e m es sa ge s

were no t rel ev an t an d were ov er l y p r e jud ic ia l. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th es e

m ot io ns

.

Afte r a jury tri al

, DeFo gg i was con vi ct ed on al l co un ts : kn owi ng ly en ga gi ng

in a ch il d ex pl oi ta ti o n e n t e r p r i se in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 A(g ) (Co un t 1)

,

co ns pi racy to ad ve rti se ch il d po rn og rap hy in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 51 (d )(1 ) an d
(e) (Co un t 2)

, co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e ch il d po rn og rap hy in vi ol at i o n o f 18 U.S.C.

§ 22 52 A(a)(2 ) an d (b )(1 ) (Co un t 3)

, an d kn owi ng ly acce ss in g a m ean s or faci li ty of

in te rs ta te co m

mer c e to vi ew ch il d po rn og rap hy in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.

§ 22 52 A(a)(5 )(B) (Co un ts 4– 7)

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d DeFo gg i’s mo t io n fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al in pa rt by va cat in g th e co nv ic ti on s on Co un ts 2 an d 3 as le ss er

in cl ud ed off

en se s o f Co un t 1 , and de ni ed hi s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l.

On Ja nu ary 5, 2015

, the co ur t se nt en ced DeFo gg i to 30 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t

on Co un t 1, an d le ss er am ou nt s fo r al l ot he r co un ts of co nv ic ti on (Co un ts 4– 7)

, to ru n

co nc ur ren tl y . DeFog gi ti m el y ap pe al ed

.

-3

-II . Dis cus si on

A. Appl ic at io n fo r In terc epti on of E le ctro ni c Comm uni ca tio n

DeFo gg i arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io n to su pp res s

ev ide nc e obt ai ne d throu gh th e in te rcep ti on of el ect ro ni c co m m un ic at ion s, be ca

use the

ap pl ic at io n to in te r c ep t hi s co m m un ic at io ns was no t pr op erl y au th or iz ed

. At th e

su pp res si on he ari ng , ho wev er, th e m ag is tra te ju d g e fo un d to th e co nt rary, an d

DeFo gg i di d no t ob

ject to th is fin di ng

. N o t i n g DeFo gg i’s la ck of ob jecti on , th e

di st ric t co ur t af

f i r med th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s fin di ng

. Bec au se DeFo gg i fil ed no

ob jecti on to th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on o n t h i s i ss ue , “ we

rev ie w th e fin di ng s of fact un de rlyin g hi s ap pe al fo r pl ai n erro r an d th e ad m is si bi li ty

of [th e ev id en ce ob ta in ed th ro ug h th e in te rcep ti on of hi s el ect ro ni c co m m un ic at io ns ]

de no vo .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Lock et t, 3 93 F.3d 83 4, 8 37 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5)

.

An ap plica

tio n to int er ce pt el ec tr oni c co m m uni ca tio ns m us t co nt ai n th e id en ti ty

of th e au th or iz ed of

fic ia l who ap pr ov ed it

. See 18 U.S.C. § 25 18 ( 1 )

. I n t e rcep te d 1

el ect ro ni c co m

m un ic at io ns m ay be su pp res se d up on a sh owi ng th at

, as rel ev an t he re,

“ th e or de r of au th or iz at io n or ap pr ov al un de r whi ch it was in te rcep te d is in su ffi ci en t

on it s face ,” or “ th e in te rcep ti on was no t m ad e in co nf or m it y wit h th e or de r of

au th or iz at io n o r ap pr ov al .” 18 U.S.C. § 2 51 8( 10 )(a) (i) –( ii ).

The st at ut e st at es in rel ev an t pa rt: “ Each ap pl ic at io n fo r an or de r au th or iz in g 1

or ap pr ov in g th e in te rcep ti on of a wire , ora l, o r el ect ro ni c co m m un ic at io n

. . . s ha ll
be m ad e in writ in g up on oa th or affi rm at io n to a jud ge of co m pe te nt juri sd ic ti on an d
sh al l st at e th e ap pl ic an t’s au th or it y to m ak e su ch ap pl ic at io n. Each ap pl ic at io n sh al l

in cl ud e th e fo ll owi ng in fo rm at io n: (a) th e id en ti ty of th e i nv es ti ga ti ve or la w

en fo rcem en t of

fic er m ak in g th e ap pl ic at io n, an d t h e o f f ic er au th or iz in g th e

ap pl ic at io n. . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 2 51 8( 1)

.

-4

-The ap pl ic at io n su bm it te d in th is cas e st at ed th at “ [a] co py of th e m em or an du m

of an of fic ia l sp eci al ly de si gn at ed by th e Att or ne y Gen eral of th e Uni te d St at es

au th or iz in g th is ap pl ic at io n is at ta ch ed to th is ap pl ic a t i o n as Exh ib it A.” DeFo gg i

arg ue s t h at he di d no t rece iv e th e m em or an du m at ta ch m en t in di sc ov ery, an d th at

th ere was no th in g to sh ow th at th e ap pr ov in g jud ge r e c e i ve d th e req ui red

m em or an du m ei th er. The go ve rn m en t ack no wled ge d to th e di st r ic t co ur t th at th e

memo r a nd um m ay no t ha ve be en in cl ud ed in th e or ig in al di sc ov ery m at eri al s

pr ov id ed to DeFo gg i at th e st art of th e cas e. W he th er or no t DeFo gg i rece iv ed it

, th e

rel ev an t qu es ti on fo r rev ie w is whe th er th e ap pr ov in g jud ge ha d th e do cu m en t at th e

ti m e sh e ap pr ov ed th e ap pl ic at io n t o i nt erce pt ele ct ro ni c co m m un ic at io ns

.

At th e he ari ng on DeFo gg i’s m ot io n to su pp res s, th e go ve rn m en t pr es en te d an

un cert ifi ed co py of a le tt er si gn ed by Ken ne th A. Bl an co , Dep ut y Ass is ta nt Att or ne y

Gen eral

. D u r i ng th e su pp res si on he ari ng , th e m ag is tra te jud ge req ue st ed cert ifi ed

co pi es of th e ap pl ic at io n a nd th e au th or iz in g l et te r fro m Bla nc o. DeFo gg i do es no t

al le ge th at Bl an co was no t au th or iz ed to si gn th e ap pl ic at io n. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 25 16 (1 ) (a Dep ut y Ass is ta nt Att or ne y Gen eral is an of fic er q u al ifi ed to au th or iz e

th e ap pl ic at io n)

. Rat he r, he a s s e r t s t h at th e le tt er id en ti fy in g Bl an co as th e

au th or iz in g of

fic er was no t at ta ch ed to th e ap pl ic at io n su bm it te d to th e ap pr ov in g jud ge

.

The fai lu re to at ta ch au th or iz at io n do cu m en ts can warra nt su pp res si on , se e

Uni te d St at es v. Lom el i, 67 6 F.3 d 73 4, 74 1– 42 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 1 2 )

, bu t he re, th e

m ag is tra te jud ge sp eci fic al ly fo un d th at “ th e Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e U.S. Dis tri ct Co ur t

fo r th e Dis tri ct of Neb ras ka au th or iz ed th e in te rcep ti on of

. . . DeFo gg i’s

co m m un ic at io ns ,” on Nov em

be r 18

, 20 1 2

, a n d “ [t]he ap pl ic at io n su bm it te d in

co nn ect io n wit h th at au th or iz at io n in cl ud ed

, as an ex hi bi t, a co py of a m em or an du m

si gn ed by Ken ne th A. B la nc o

. . . .” The m ag is tra te jud ge th eref or e co nc lu de d t ha t

“ th e au th or iz in g jud ge

. . . ha d th e na m e of th e act ua l, st at ut or il y de si gn at ed of fic ia l

who ha d in de ed au th or iz ed th e ap pl ic at io n,” an d th at DeFo gg i’s m ot io n to su pp res s

-5

-sh ou ld be de ni ed

. The di st ric t co ur t ad op te d th is fin di ng

. D e F o g g i o f f e rs no

arg um en t as to why th is fin di ng is pl ai nl y erro ne ou s, as se rti ng on ly th at “ th ere is no

reco rd to de m on st rat e th e ap pr ov in g jud ge rece iv ed [th e si gn ed le tt er fro m Bl an co ]. ”

Bu t, aft er ex am in in g th e ex hi bi ts

, th e co ur t ru l e d ot he rwis e. Und er th es e

ci rcu m st an ces , we can no t sa y th e di st ri c t c o u r t erre d in fin di ng th at th e ap pl ic at io n

as pr es en te d to th e di st ric t co ur t in cl ud ed th e ne ces sa ry au th or iz at io n do cu m en ts

. Bec au se th e ap pl i c a t io n was pr op erl y au th or iz ed

, an d th e di st ric t co ur t ha d th is

in fo rm at io n at th e ti m e of ap pr ov al

, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in de nyin g DeFo gg i’s

m ot io n t o s up pr es s. See Lock et t, 3 93 F.3d at 8 37

.

B. Sea rch W ar ra nt

DeFo gg i al so arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io n to su pp res s

e vi de nc e ob ta in ed du rin g th e se arch of hi s ho m e on Apr il 9, 20 13

, be c a u s e t h e

affi da vi t in su pp or t of th e warra nt di d no t es ta bl is h pr ob ab le cau se

. In pa rti cu la r, he

arg ue s th at th ere was in su ffi ci en t in fo rm at io n li nk in g hi m to Ped oB oo k, an d th us no

pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th a t ev id en ce of cri m in al act iv it y wou ld be fo un d at hi s

res id en ce. “ W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s le ga l de te rm in at i o n o f pr ob ab le

cau se .” Uni te d v. Hag er, 710 F.3 d 8 30 , 83 6 (8t h Cir. 20 13 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d Stat es v.

Co le m an , 70 0 F .3d 32 9, 3 34 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2) ).

“ Pro ba bl e cau se ex i s t s w h e n th ere is a fai r pr ob ab il it y th at co nt rab an d or

ev id en ce of a cri m e wil l be fo un d in a pa rti cu la r pl ace.” Id

. (q uo ta ti on s an d ci ta ti on s

om it te d)

. W e ut il iz e a to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces te st an d a co m m on se ns e

ap pr oa ch whe n rev ie win g whe th er pr ob ab le cau se ex is ts

. Id

. (q uot at ion s an d ci ta tio ns

om it te d)

. W e “ m ay dr aw reas on ab le in fere nc es fro m th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces

in de t e r mi n i n g whe th er pr ob ab le cau se ex is ts to is su e a warra nt .” Id

. (q uo ta ti on

om it te d)

.

-6

-The se arch warra nt he re was su pp o r te d by pr ob ab le cau se

. The warra nt

ap pl ic at io n in cl ud ed an affi da vi t writ te n by Sp eci al Age n t P a t r i c i a J. Teak le of th e
FBI, whi ch care fu ll y de sc rib ed Ped oB oo k, th e FBI’s m et ho ds of id en ti fy in g it s us ers ,

an d th e li nk be twee n DeFo g g i a n d th e web si te

. As an in it ia l m at te r, th e affi da vi t

ex pl ai ne d t ha t b ecau se it was o n t he Tor net wor k, Pe do Bo ok co ul d n ot be acce ss ed

wit ho ut th e in st al la ti on of ap pr op ria te so ftw a r e a n d k no wled ge of it s ex act web

a dd res s. A us er co ul d ob ta in th e web ad dr es s fo r th e web si te di rect ly fro m o t h e r

us ers , or fro m in te rn et po st in gs de sc rib in g Ped oB oo k’s co nt en t an d lo cat io n, bu t no t

fro m an y type of web se arch

. Acces si n g Ped oB oo k th eref or e req ui red nu m ero us

affi rm at iv e st ep s by th e us er, m ak in g it ex tre m el y un li ke ly th at a us er wou ld st um bl e

up on it wit ho ut kn owi ng th at it s pu rp os e was to ad ve rti se an d di st rib ut e ch il d

po rn og rap hy and un de rs ta nd in g t he co nt en t t o b e fo un d t he re.

The a f fid av it al so ex pl ai ne d th at

, th ro ug h th e go ve rn m en t’s m on it or in g an d

se arch es of th e da ta lo gs on ce it ha d co nt ro l of Ped oB oo k, th e FBI co nc lu de d th at an

acco un t was crea te d on or ab ou t Apr il 18

, 20 12

, wit h th e us ern am e “ fu ck ch ris t” an d

di sp la y na m e “ Pt as se at er.” The affi da vi t in cl ud ed ex am pl es of act iv it y co nd uc te d on

Ped oB oo k by th at m em

be r, in cl ud in g th e fil en am es of th e ch il d po rn og rap hy im ag es

acce ss ed an d th e pr iv at e m es sa ge s s en t be twee n th at m em be r an d ot he rs

. An FBI

“ on li ne co v ert em

pl oyee” co nt act ed th at m em be r vi a th e pr iv at e m es sa gi ng feat ur e

of Ped oB oo k, an d t h e mem be r ga ve th e FBI em

pl oyee an em ai l ad dr es s (fu ck ch ris t@ to rma i l

. o r g) an d to ld hi m he no rm al ly acce ss ed th e Tor ne two rk fro m

4: 00 a.m . to 6: 00 a.m . and 4: 30 p.m . to 6: 00 p.m

.

The affi da vi t th en de sc rib ed ho w th e FBI co nn ect ed th at us ern am e an d di sp la y

na m e to DeFo gg i. Sev eral pa ge s of th e affi da vi t di sc us se d ho w DeFo gg i us ed th es e

sa m e na m es fo r m

ul ti pl e ch il d po rn og rap hy web si te s, whe re he m ad e co m m en ts ve ry

-7

-si m il ar i n s ub st an ce an d t on e to th os e m ad e o n P ed oB oo k. Th e FBI ob ta in ed an IP

ad dr es s as so ci at ed wit h t he acco un t “ pt as se at er” fro m on e su ch webs it e – an im ag e

ho st in g web si te – wh ic h was co nn ect ed to Veri zo n Int ern et Serv ic es

. Veri zo n t he n

pr ov id ed th e pe rs on al in fo rm at io n fo r th e in di vi du al as so ci at ed wit h th at IP ad dr es s

du rin g th e ti m e pe rio d in whi ch th at us er acce ss ed c h il d po rn og rap hy o n th e im ag e

ho st in g si te – an d th at in di vi du a l was DeFo gg i. Oth er IP ad dr es se s us ed to acce ss

ch il d p or no gr ap hy were co nn ect ed to DeFo gg i i n a si m il ar m an ne r.

Mo reo ve r, th e aff

id av it ex pl ai ne d t ha t a s ub ject u nd er FB I in ve st ig at io n fo r

act iv it ie s rel at ed to ch il d ex pl oi ta ti on m at eri al ha d pr ov id ed th e FBI wit h in fo rm at io n

on an in di vi du al in it ia ll y id en ti fie d as “ Je ff,” who was a m em be r of “ bo y lo ve r.ne t,”

a kn own web si te fo r un de rag e m al e ch il d po rn og rap hy, an d us ed a va rie ty o f em ai l

ad dr es se s inc lud ing “ pt as se at er@ ho tm ai l.co m .” The in fo rm an t al so pr ov id ed th e FBI

wit h a cel l ph on e nu m

be r fo r “ Je ff” an d to ld th em of an i n d i vi du al who ha d

pe rs on al ly m et “ Je ff.”

“Jeff” tu rn ed ou t to be DeFo gg i, an d he to ld th e in di vi du al (th en un de r F B I

su rv ei ll an ce) in -p ers on th at hi s re a l na m e was Tim

, th at he wor ke d in th e DC area , th at he ha d a go ve rn m en t se cu rit y cl eara nc e, an d th at he ha d a do m es ti c pa rtn er. An

o p e n so ur ce da ta ba se ch eck co nf irmed th at DeFo gg i li ve d at 20 31 1 Cro wn Ri dg e

Co ur t, Germ an to wn, Ma ry la nd . The FB I th en co nf irmed th ro ug h t he Uni te d St at es

Po st a l S e r v i c e an d vi su al su rv ei ll an ce th at DeFo gg i rece iv ed m ai l at th at res id en ce

an d m ai nt ai ne d a ve hi cl e reg is te red in hi s na m e th e r e

. Th e cel l ph on e nu m be r fo r

“ Je ff” was ev en tu al ly li nk ed to DeFo gg i. Fi na ll y , th ro ug h su rv ei ll an ce wit h a pe n

reg is te r an d a tra p an d tra ce ob ta in ed fo r DeFo gg i’s in te rn et acco un t, th e FBI le arn ed

th at co m pu te rs in DeFo gg i’s ho m e were co nn ect ed t o t h e To r ne two rk at th e sa m e

ti m es th at “ pt as se at er” c la im ed to be on li ne in th e p riv at e ch at s o ve r Ped oB oo k.

-8

-DeFo gg i co un te rs th at be cau se a Myspa ce pr of il e in cl ud ed in th e affi da vi t di d

no t be lo ng to hi m , th e FBI ha d fai le d to li nk hi m to th e acco un ts wit h th e us ern am es

“ pt as se at er” an d “ fu ck ch ris t.” DeFo gg i arg ue s ot he rs co ul d ha ve us ed th e sa m e

us ern am es , an d th at be cau se th e affi da vi t di d no t id en ti fy an IP ad dr es s fo r DeFo gg i

th at li nk ed hi m di rect ly to Ped oB oo k (al th ou gh th e FBI co nn ected IP ad dr es se s li nk ed

to DeFo gg i to ot he r ch il d po rn og rap hy web si te s)

, th ere was no pr ob ab le cau se

. Giv en

th e cu m ul at iv e in fo rm at io n in cl ud ed in th e se arch warra nt ap pl ic at io n li nk in g

DeFo gg i to m

ul ti pl e ch il d po rn og rap hy web si te s in cl ud in g Pe d o B o o k, th es e

as se rti on s do no t de tra ct fro m ou r co nc lu si on th at pr ob ab le cau se ex is t e d

. The

affi da vi t in su pp or t of th e se arch warra nt pr ov id ed m or e th an en ou gh in fo rm at io n to

su pp or t a fin di ng of pr o b a b l e c a u se to be li ev e th at ev id en ce of cri m in al act iv it y

wou ld be fou nd at DeF og gi ’s res id en ce.

C. Ev id ence of Cha t Mes sa ge s

DeFo gg i al so arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io n to

ex cl ud e ev id en ce of h i s “ fan ta sy ch at m es sa ge s” at tri al be cau se th ey were no t

rel ev an t un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ev i d e n c e 4 0 1 an d were un fai rly pr ejud ic ia l un de r

Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 3. Ch al le ng es to ev id en ti ary ru li ng s are rev ie wed fo r an

ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Sewel l, 45 7 F.3 d 84 1, 84 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). W e

wil l rev ers e on ly if an erro r “ affe ct s th e su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s of th e de fen da nt ” or ha s

“ m or e th an a sl ig ht in flu en ce on th e [jury’ s] ve rd ic t.” Uni te d St at es v. Yarri ng to n,

63 4 F.3 d 44 0, 44 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Elb ert

, 56 1 F.3 d 77 1, 77 5
(8 th Cir . 20 09 )). “ W e wil l n ot rev ers e if th e err or was h arm le ss .” Id

.

Ru le 40 1 st at es th at to be rel ev an t, ev id en ce m us t te nd to m ak e a fact m or e or

le ss pro ba bl e o r “ be of co ns eq ue nc e in de te rm in in g th e act io n.” Fed . R. Evi d. 4 01

. We ha ve pr ev io us ly he ld th at pe rs on al ch at s on ch il d po rn og rap hy web si te s are

-9

-ad m is si bl e as ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce as so ci at i n g th e de fen da nt “ wit h th e ch il d

po rn og rap hy fo un d on hi s co m pu te r,” an d th at “ th e di st ric t co ur t was wit hi n it s

di sc ret io n t o a d mi t ” s u c h ch at s. Uni te d St at es v. Man ni ng , 7 38 F.3 d 93 7, 94 3 (8 th

Ci r. 20 14 ). As in Man ni ng , “ po rti on s of th e ch at s co nt ai ne d id en ti fy in g in fo rm at io n

ab ou t [DeFo gg i].” Id

. In th e ch at s, DeFo gg i wro te at le ng th a b ou t hi s in te res t in

ch ild po rn og rap hy an d so li ci te d ch il d po rn og rap hy fro m ot her m em be rs of Pe doB ook.

DeFo gg i’s ch at s th eref

or e “ rev eal ed [h is ] id en ti ty, hi s pr efer en ces fo r di ffer en t types

of ch il d po rn og rap hy, an d hi s de si re to ex ch an ge ch il d po rn og rap hy wit h ot he r pe op le

on li ne .” Id

. at 94 4. DeF o g g i w a s c h a rg ed wit h kn owi ng ly acce ss in g a m ean s or

faci li ty of in te rs ta te co m

m erce to vi ew ch il d po rn og rap hy, an d th e ch at s were rel ev an t
(o nc e DeFo gg i was con ne ct ed to hi s us ern am es ) as a m ean s of id en ti fy in g DeFog gi

as th e pe rs on kn owi ng ly acce ss in g t h e c h i l d po rn og rap hy on hi s co m pu te r. The

di s t r i ct co ur t th us di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de te rm in in g th at DeFo gg i’s ch at s

were re le va nt ev id en ce u nd er Ru le 40 1.

DeFo gg i arg ue s th at ev en if th e ch at s wer e r e le va nt

, th e di st ric t co ur t

no ne th el es s erre d in ad m it ti ng th em be cau se th ey were un fai rly pr ejud ic ia l du e to

th ei r sh oc ki ng na tu re. Rel ev an t ev id en ce m ay st il l be ex cl ud ed if “ it s pr ob at iv e va lu e

is su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh ed by a da ng er of

. . . un fai r pr ejud ic e.” Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 3.

And we ag ree th at ch at s fan ta si zi ng ab ou t rap in g an d ki ll in g ch il dr en “ are by t he ir

ve ry na tu re di st ur bi ng ,” an d “ hi gh ly li ke ly to ge ne rat e an em ot io na l r e s p o n s e .”

Uni te d St at es v. Eva ns , 80 2 F.3 d 94 2, 94 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). Bu t th e di st ur bi ng na tu re

of ot he rwis e rel ev an t ev id en ce c a n n ot be th e so le reas on to ex cl ud e it

. Id

. (“ [Ru le

40 3] do es no t of

fer pr ot ect io n ag ai ns t ev id en ce th at is m erel y pr ejud ic ia l in th e se ns e

of be in g de tri m en ta l to a pa rty’ s cas e,” b u t r a t h e r “ ev id en ce th at is ‘u nf ai rl y

pr ejud ic ia l.’” (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. McC ou rt, 46 8 F.3 d 10 88

, 1 0 9 2 ( 8 th Ci r.

20 06 ))); see als o Un it ed Sta te s v . Jo hn so n, 4 63 F.3d 80 3, 8 09 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6)

.

-1 0-W hi le th e pu re vo lu m e of th e ch at s ad m it te d in to ev i d e n ce co nc ern s us , se e

Eva ns , 80 2 F.3 d at 94 6, DeFo gg i m ak es on ly th e m os t ge ne ral of arg um en ts on ap pe al

as to ho w th ei r ad m is si on pr ejud ic ed hi m

. He do es no t id en ti fy an y sp eci fic ch at s he

be li ev es are es pe ci al ly pr ob le m at ic ; an d he do es no t e x p l a i n h ow th e jury was

pr ejud ic ed

, ho w th e ch at s m ay ha ve un fai rly affe ct ed th ei r vi ew of th e ch arg es ag ai ns t

hi m , or ho w th e ch at s were m or e d i s tu rb in g th an th e im ag es th em se lv es

. DeFo gg i

cal ls th e ch a t s “s h o ck in g,” bu t “ do es no t art ic ul at e wha t un fai r pr ejud ic e res ul te d

fro m th e pu bl ic at io n of th is ev id en ce to th e jury.” Id . ( ci ti ng McC ou rt, 4 68 F.3d at

10 92

, fo r th e pr op os it io n th at “ [t]he Su pr em e Co ur t ha s ad vi s e d th at Ru le 40 3

req ui res a pr e l i mina ry sh owi ng of un fai r pr ejud ic e be fo re th e ne ed to ba la nc e th e

pr ob at iv e v al ue of t he ev id en ce an d it s al te rn at iv es ari se s” ). Si m pl y ch arac te riz in g

th e ev id en ce in th is way do es no t g i v e u s s uf fic ie nt gr ou nd s to co nc lu de th at th e

di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti n g t h e ch at s. “ W it ho ut a pr el im in ary 2

sh owi ng of pr ejud ic e, ‘w e ne ed no t co ns id er or wei gh th e pr ob at iv e va lu e’” of th e

ch at s. Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. W or th ey , 71 6 F.3 d 11 07

, 11 15 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 )).

D. Suff

ic ie ncy of t he Ev id ence

DeFo gg i al le ge s th at th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to ad du ce su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to

co nv ic t hi m be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t of a ch il d ex pl oi ta ti on en te rp ris e an d acce ss

wit h in te nt to vi ew ch il d po rn og rap hy. W e rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce in

a jury tri al de no vo , bu t ex am in e th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e jury’ s

ve rd ic t, res ol vi ng fact ua l di sp ut es an d acce pt in g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in su pp or t

of th e ve rd ic t. Man ni ng , 73 8 F.3 d at 94 5. W e m us t up ho ld th e jury’ s ve rd ic t “ if th ere

is an in te rp ret at io n of th e ev id en ce th at wou ld al lo w a reas on ab le -m in d e d jury to

DeFo gg i repe at s hi s ass ert io n th at hi s ch at m es sa ge s were ov erl y pr ejud ic ia l 2

wit h reg ard to hi s m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al

. W e reject hi s ch al le ng e to th e de ni al of hi s

m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l b as ed on hi s ch at m es sa ge s fo r th es e sa m e rea so ns

.

-1 1-co nc lu de gu il t be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Un i t e d St at es v. Tho m ps on , 28 5 F.3 d

73 1, 7 33 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2)

.

1. Cou nt 1

DeFo gg i was co nv ic te d o f en ga gi ng in a ch il d exp lo it at io n ent erp ris e (CEE),

in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 2A( g) . Sect io n 2 25 2A( g) pro vi de s:

(1 ) W ho ev er en ga ge s in a ch il d ex pl oi ta ti on en te rp ris e sh al l be fin ed

un de r th is ti tl e an d im

pr is on ed fo r an y te rm of y ears no t le ss th an 20 or fo r li fe.

(2 ) A pe rs on en ga ge s in a ch il d ex pl oi ta ti on en te rp ris e fo r th e pu rp os es of th is se ct io n if th e pe rs on vi ol at es [cer ta in ot he r se ct io ns ] as a pa rt of

a se rie s of fel on y vi ol at io ns co ns ti tu ti ng th ree or m or e se pa rat e in ci de nt s

an d in vo lv in g m or e th an on e vi ct im

, an d co mm i t s t h os e of fen se s in 3

co nc ert wit h t hr ee o r m or e o th er p ers on s.

DeFo gg i arg ue s th at un de r th e pr op er ap pl ic at io n of th e te rm “ in co nc ert wit h,” th e

go ve rn m en t pr ov id ed in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r th e jury to co nv ic t hi m of en ga gi ng in

a CEE ba se d on th e pr ed ic at e co un ts of acce ss in g ch il d po rn og rap hy. W e de ci de th is

is su e on na rro w gr ou nd s. The in di ct men t al le ge d th at DeFo gg i co m m it te d fo ur

se pa rat e pr ed ic at e vi ol at io ns as de fin ed in § 22 52 A(g ). Sp eci fic al ly, th e go ve rn m en t

ch arg ed fo ur in st an ces of acce ss in g wit h in te nt to vi ew ch il d po rn og rap hy in vi ol at io n

of 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 A(a)(5 )(b ) (Co un ts 4– 7)

. Sect io n 22 52 A(a)(5 )(b ) is vi ol at ed if

a pe rs on “ kn owi ng ly acce ss es wit h in te nt to vi ew, an y

. . . co m pu te r di sk

, or an y ot he r

The pa rti es do no t di sp ut e th at th e CEE of fen se as ch arg ed in vo lv ed m or e th an 3

on e v ic ti m

.

-1 2-m at eri al th at co nt ai ns an im ag e of ch il d po rn og rap hy th at ha s be e n

. . . s h i p p ed or

tra ns p o r t e d u s in g an y m ean s or faci li ty of in te rs ta te or fo rei gn co m m erce or in or

affe ct in g i nt ers ta te or f

or ei gn co m

m erce by any

m ean s, i nc lu di ng by com pu te r.”

To co nv ic t DeFo gg i of a CEE, th ere m us t be ev id en c e t h a t he co m m it te d at

le as t th ree of th e pr ed ic at e of fen se s “ in co nc ert wit h” th ree or m or e pe op le

. Prec ed en ti al gu id an ce on th e “ in co nc ert ” la ng ua ge in th e CEE of fen se is li m it ed

, bu t

in co ns tru in g 21 U.S.C. § 84 8( c), whi ch pr os cri b e s a c r im in al dr ug en te rp ris e, th e

Su pr em e Co ur t ha s st at ed th at “ th e pl ai n m ean in g of th e ph ras e ‘in co nc ert ’ si gn ifi es

m ut ua l ag reem en t in a co m m on pl an or en te rp ris e” su ffi ci en t to co ns ti tu te a

co ns pi racy. Ru tl ed ge v. Uni te d St at es , 51 7 U.S. 29 2, 30 0 (1 99 6)

. W e ag ree wit h ou r

si st er ci rcu it s th at th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s co ns tru ct io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 8 in fo rm s ou r

read in g of § 22 52 A(g ). See Uni te d St at es v. Gro vo , Nos

. 15 -3 00 16

, 15 -3 00 27

, 20 16

W L 34 43 69 1, at *4 (9 th Ci r. Ju n. 23

, 20 16 ); Uni te d St at es v. Dan ie ls

, 65 3 F.3 d 39 9,

41 3 (6 th Ci r. 20 11 ); Uni te d St at es v. W ay ers ki

, 62 4 F.3 d 13 42

, 13 51 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ).

It fo ll ows fro m Ru tl e d g e ’s ho ld in g th at to act “ in co nc ert wit h” req ui res th e sa m e

m en s re a as a co ns pi racy char ge . Grov o, 2 01 6 WL 34 43 69 1, at *4

.

In th is cas e, ho wev er, we do no t se e su ff ic ie nt ev id en ce th at DeFo gg i

co m m it te d th e pr ed ic at e of

fen se s of acce ss in g ch il d po rn og rap hy “ in co nc ert wit h”

an y on e el se – ev en as su m in g fo r p u r p o s e s of an al y si s th at “ in co nc ert wit h” m ean s

no m or e th an an ag reem en t. For each pre di cat e co un t, t he jury was pre se nt ed wit h 4

W hi le DeFo gg i arg ue s, as ot he rs be fo re hi m ha ve do n e , t ha t th e st at ut e 4

req ui r e s each in di vi du al pr ed ic at e fel on y to be co m m it te d “ in co nc ert wit h” th ree

ot he r pe rs on s, we ag ree wit h th e Nin th an d Si xt h C i r c u i t s th at “ th e m or e na tu ral
read in g of § 22 52 A(g ) is th at ‘the req ui red to ta l of th ree ot he r pe rs on s m ay be ta ll ie d by co ns id eri ng th e pr ed ic at e co un ts to ge th er.’” Gro vo , 20 16 W L 34 43 69 1, at *5 (q uo ti ng Dani el s, 6 53 F.3d at 4 12 ).

-1 3-sc reen sh ot s of ot he r m em be rs ’ pr of il es an d th e im ag es DeFo gg i cl ic ke d on th at were

up lo ad ed to th e p ro fil es . But we do no t u nd ers ta nd ho w t he si ng le act of a cces si ng

an im ag e wit h th e in te nt to vi ew it by cl ic ki ng on it al on e fro m be hi nd on e’s co m pu te r

sc reen can be do ne “ in co nc ert wit h” an y on e el se – at le as t no t on th e fact s pr es en te d

he re. The go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at DeFo gg i en te red a “ co ns pi racy” wit h th ree or m or e

ot he r pe op le “ to co mm i t th e of fen se of acce ss in g wit h in te nt to vi ew ch il d

po rn og rap hy.” But ev en as su m in g with ou t d eci di ng th at th e CEE of fen se req ui res 5

a co ns pi racy an d no th in g m or e, th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t he re. Co ns pi racy

req ui res an ag reem en t t o a c co m pl is h th e sp eci fic il le ga l ob jecti ve at is su e – he re,

acce ss in g ch il d po rn og rap hy. The ev id en c e sh owe d th at m an y pe op le vo lu nt ari ly
joi ne d Ped oB oo k in pa rt to acce ss ch il d po rn og rap hy. Bu t th at do es no t ne ces sa ril y

m ean th at DeFo gg i, whe n he acce s s ed ch il d po rn og rap hy o n th e sp eci fic oc cas io ns

ch arg ed in th e pr ed ic at e co un ts 4– 7, ag reed to do so wit h an y on e el se

. And th e tri al

reco r d is be reft of ev id en ce of an y su ch ag reem en t in th is cas e. Eve n if we fu rth er

as su m e th at pa rti ci pa nt s i n t he en te rp ris e n eed no t ac t s im ul ta ne ou sl y , see id . at * 5,

th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to of fer ev id en ce th at DeFo gg i act ed in co nc er t w i t h a nyon e

co nc ern in g th e un de rlyin g el em en ts of th e of fen se of acce ss in g wit h in te nt to vi ew

ch il d p or no gr ap hy as ch arg ed in Co un ts 4– 7.

W e no te th at th is arg um en t ap pe ars to ov erl oo k th e st at ut or y req ui rem en t th at 5

a pe rs on ch arg ed wit h en ga gi ng in a CEE m us t co mmit th ree of

fen se s, no t si mp l y

ag ree t o c om m it th em , in ord er t o b e co nv ic te d. Se e 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 52 A(g ).

-1 4-Li k e s e v e r a l of th e de fen da nt s in th e cas es an al y zed by ou r si st er ci rcu it s, 6

De Fogg i pa rti ci pa te d in in te ract iv e feat ur es of th e ch il d po rn og rap hy web si te at is su e,

su ch as pr iv at e m es sa gi ng be twee n m em be rs

. Yet th at co nd uc t is se pa rat e an d ap art

fro m th e of

fen se s th at co ns ti tu te d th e un de rlyin g pr ed ic at es ne ces sa ry to su st ai n th e

ch il d ex pl oi ta ti on en te rp ris e of fen se , i.e., acce ss in g wit h in te nt to vi ew c h il d

po rn og rap h y

. W he th er or no t DeFo gg i’s ot he r Ped oB oo k- rel at ed act iv it ie s were

pr os cri be d by ot he r st at ut es , th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to pr ov e th at DeFo gg i was gu il ty

of vi ol at io n 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 52 A(g ) as th e o ffen se was c ha rg ed in th is cas e.

2. Cou nts 4– 7

DeFo gg i al so arg ue s th at no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve co nc lu de d be y on d a

reas on ab le do ub t th at he “ in te nt io na ll y ” acce ss ed Ped oB o ok to vi ew ch il d

po rn og rap hy a s c h a r ge d in Co un ts 4– 7. Thi s is be cau se , he as se rts

, (1 ) th e

g o v e r n men t fai le d to pr ov id e an y di rect ev id en ce th at he was th e pe rs on who w a s

us in g th e co m

pu te r to vi ew Ped oB oo k, (2 ) ev en if he di d acce ss Ped oB oo k, he di d so

be cau se he us ed th e Tor ne two rk fo r wor k, no t so th at he co ul d vi ew ch il d

po rn og rap hy, an d (3 ) hi s ch at s di d no t sh ow an in te nt to acce s s o r s o l ic it ch il d

po rn og rap hy beca us e th ey were “ m ere fa nt as y .” 7

See, e.g ., Gro vo , 20 16 W L 34 43 69 1, at *6 (“ Bo th de fen da nt s po st ed hu nd red s 6

of ti m es , . . . ga in ed ad m is si on to th e up pe r le ve l of th e

. . . bo ard aft er be in g ad m it te d

an d el ev at ed th ro ug h a vo uc hi ng pr oc es s,

. . . [ a n d ] r e p e at ed ly acce ss ed an d
di st ribut ed ch ild por

nogr ap hy

. ”) ; W ay er ski

, 624 F.3 d at 13 48 (d efen da nt s pa rti ci pa te d

in a so ph is ti cat ed gr ou p, co m m un ic at ed wit h each ot he r, li m it ed it s m em be rs hi p, an d

“ m ad e sp eci fic req ue st s fo r an d p ur ch as ed th e p ro du ct io n o f ne w il li ci t m at eri al ”).

DeFo gg i al so m ak es th es e as se rti on s in su pp or t of hi s arg um en t th at th ere was 7

in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to co nv ic t hi m on Co un t 1. Giv en ou r ru li ng ab ov e, we co ns id er th em on ly as to Co un ts 4– 7.

-1 5-A s p rev io us ly di sc us se d, ev id en ce ti ed DeFo gg i to th e on li ne us ern am e a n d

d i s p l a y n am e “ fu ck ch ris t” an d “ Pt as se at er” on th e Ped oB oo k web si te

. The FBI’ s

in ve st ig at io n in to th os e us ern am es th ro ug h op e n s ou rce da ta ba se se arch es , ad m in is tra ti ve su bp oe na s to DeFo gg i’s in t ern et se rv ic e pr ov id ers , an d co op erat io n

wit h fo rei gn la w en fo rcem en t rev eal ed th at th e us ern am es be lo ng ed to DeFo gg i.

The re was Tor tra ffi c as so ci at ed wit h th os e id en ti ti es oc cu rri ng at hi s res id en ce in th e

earl y m or ni ng ho ur s on th e Ped oB oo k web si te

. In pr iv at e ch at s on Ped oB oo k,

DeFo gg i di sc lo se d id en ti fy in g in fo rm at io n su ch as hi s ge og rap hi c lo cat io n an d th e

ti m es whe n he freq ue nt ed Ped oB oo k an d ot he r ch il d po rn og rap hy web si te s. His in

pe rs on m eet in g wit h an ot he r pe rs on un de r in ve st ig at io n es ta bl is he d th at hi s na m e w as

Tim an d l et th e FBI kn ow DeFog gi ha d a do m es ti c pa rtn er who was un aware of h is

in te res ts (in fo rm at io n th at ev en tu al ly he lp ed th e FBI de te rm in e who at D e F o g g i ’s

ad dr es s was acce ss in g ch il d po rn og rap hy). DeFo gg i ha d ex te ns iv e kn owl ed ge of th e

Tor ne two rk

, an d Ped oB oo k co ul d no t be di sc ov ered an d acc e ss ed wit ho ut it

. The
jury w as reas on ab le in co nc lu di ng th at DeFo gg i was acce ss in g P ed oB oo k.

Mo reo ve r, it was reas on ab le fo r th e jury to co nc lu d e t h a t D eFo gg i acce ss ed

Ped oB oo k wit h th e in te nt to vi ew ch il d po rn og rap hy. The fan ta sy ch at m es sa ge s on

Ped oB oo k rev eal ed “ co pi ou s am ou nt s of di sc us si on co nc ern in g th e ex ch an ge of ch il d

p or no gr ap hy wit h ot he r us ers .” Man ni ng , 73 8 F.3 d at 94 5. DeFo gg i di sc lo se d

id en ti fy in g de ta il s ab ou t hi m se lf “ in th e co nt ex t of di sc us si ng th e ex ch an ge of ch il d

po rn og rap hy wit h ot he rs .” Id

. DeFo gg i arg ue s th at th os e ch at s were “ m ere fan ta sy”

an d no t in di cat iv e of so li ci ta ti on or of a st ep to ward ob ta in in g ch il d po rn og rap hy. He

arg ue s th at th e ch at s are th eref or e “ sp eech pr ot ect ed un de r t h e F irs t Am en dm en t.”

Howev er, th e so li ci ta ti on of ch i l d po rn og rap hy can be pr os cri be d wit ho ut Fi rs t

Am en dm en t co nc ern s whe re a “ st at ut e pe na li zes s p e e c h th at acco m pa ni es or se ek s

to in du ce a tra ns fer of ch il d p o r n o g r ap hy

– vi a rep ro du ct io n or ph y si cal de li ve ry

– fro m on e p ers on to an ot he r.” Uni te d S ta te s v . W il li am s, 5 53 U.S. 28 5, 2 94 (20 08 ).

-1 6-“ [O]ffers to pr ov id e or req ue st s to ob ta in ch il d po rn og rap hy a r e c a te go ric al ly

ex cl ud ed fro m th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t.” Id

. at 29 9. DeFo gg i as ke d ot he r m em be rs of

Ped oB oo k whe re he co ul d fin d cert ai n vi de os an d whe th er th ey ha d or co ul d pr od uc e

im ag es for hi m . He th en pro vi de d h is em ai l ad dr es s to th os e ot he r m em be rs . Suc h

so li ci ta ti on s were no t jus t “ sp eech pr ot ect ed un de r th e Fi rs t A m en dm en t,” as DeFo gg i

arg ue s

. R a t h er, th e ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri al was su ffi ci en t to pr ov e th at he

in te nd ed to acce ss ch il d p or no gr ap hy.

Add it io na l evi de nc e al so sh owe d th at DeFo gg i was acce ss in g Ped oB oo k and

il lu st rat ed hi s sp eci fic in te nt to acce ss ch il d po rn og rap hy in do in g so

. Fo r in st an ce,

whe n th e FBI ex ec u t e d th e se arch warra nt at DeFo gg i’s res id en ce, he ha d to be

fo rci bl y s e p arat ed fro m hi s la pt op , whi ch was act iv el y do wnl oa di ng a ch il d

po rn og rap hy vi de o. The la pt op co nt ai ne d ev id en ce of th e us ern am e “ fu ck ch ris t” an d

a Yah oo Mes se ng er pr of

il e fo r “ PTas se at er6 9.” In ad di ti on , th e Tor br ows er bu nd le

was fo un d on th e la pt op wit h ev id en ce of br ows in g act iv it ie s on m ul ti pl e ch il d

po rn og rap hy si te s, in cl ud i n g P e d oB oo k. Im ag es of ch il d po rn og rap hy were al so

lo cat ed on th e co m

pu te r. DeFo gg i’s act io ns in at te m pt in g to m ai nt ai n an on y m it y by

crea ti ng us ern am es , reg is te rin g a s a m em be r of th e web si te

, crea ti ng a pr of il e pa ge ,

se le ct in g or acce pt i ng ot he r m em be rs as “ fri en ds ,” joi ni ng va rio us su bc at eg or y

gr ou ps , req ue st in g or so li ci ti ng ch il d po rn og rap hy fro m ot he r m em be rs , as well as th e

co nt en ts of hi s lap to p when he was a pp reh en de d a re m or e th an en ou gh to su pp or t a
jury find in g o f in te nt

.

The jury was free to acce pt or r eject DeFo gg i’s t he or y th at so m eo ne els e h ad

us ed hi s co m

pu te r or th at he ha d acce ss ed Ped oB oo k fo r pr of es si on al reas on s. See

Uni te d St at es v. Hen le y , 76 6 F.3 d 89 3, 90 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (“ In rev ie win g a ch al le ng e

to th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce

. . . ‘a jury’ s cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns are vi rtu al ly

un rev ie wab le .’ ” (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Pere z, 66 3 F.3 d 38 7, 39 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ))).

-1 7-He do es no m or e th an res ta te th at arg um en t here

. Upo n th e ev id en ce pres en te d, we

fin d t ha t a r eas on ab le jury co ul d c on cl ud e b ey on d a reas on ab le do ub t t ha t DeF og gi

acce ss ed Ped oB oo k a nd ot he r web si te s wi th th e in te nt to vi ew ch il d p or no gr ap hy.

The of f e ns e of acce ss in g ch il d po rn og rap hy al so req ui res an “ in te rs ta te

co m m erce ” ne xu s. DeFo gg i al le ge s th at th ere is no ev id en ce th at th e co m pu te r di sk 8

or ot he r m at eri al co nt ai ni ng vi su al de pi ct io ns of ch il d po rn og rap hy were tra ns po rte d

in in te rs ta te co m

m erce be cau se “ [t]he in te rs ta te ne xu s m us t be es ta bl is he d pr io r to th e

us er’s acce ss .” “ The In te r n e t is an in st ru m en ta li ty an d ch an ne l of in te rs ta te

co m m erce .” Uni te d St at es v. Hav li k, 71 0 F.3 d 81 8, 82 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (ci ti ng

Uni te d St at es v. Trot te r, 47 8 F. 3 d 9 1 8

, 9 2 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )). DeFo gg i’s us e of th e

in te rn et to acce ss an d do wnl oa d im ag es an d vi de os fro m Ped oB oo k is en ou gh in th is

cas e to sa ti sf

y th e in te rs ta te co m

m erce ne x u s

. Eve n if it were no t, th e co nt en t of

Ped oB oo k was up lo ad ed by th e web si te ’s gl ob al us ers

. The se rv er th at ho st ed th e

da ta th at co m

pr is ed th e Ped oB oo k web si te was lo cat ed in Neb ras ka

. A us er acce ss in g

th e web si te an d it s co nt en t fro m Mar y la nd wou ld be acce ss in g da ta th at was s to red

on an d ha d tra ve le d fro m a s e r v e r l o c a t ed in Neb ras ka

. A reas on ab le tri er of fact

th eref or e co ul d fin d th at DeFo gg i acce ss ed th e web si te wit h th e in te nt to vi ew ch il d

18 U.S.C. § 2 25 2( a)(5 )(B) cri m in al iz es a pe rs on who : 8

kn owi ng ly po ss es se s, or kn owi ng ly acce ss es wit h in te nt to vi ew, an y bo ok

, m ag azi ne , pe rio di cal

, fil m , vi de ot ap e, co m pu te r di sk

, or an y ot he r

m at eri al th at co nt ai ns an im ag e of ch il d po rn og rap hy th a t ha s be en

m ai le d, or sh ip pe d or tra ns po rte d us in g an y m ean s or faci li ty of

in te rs ta te or fo rei gn co m m erce or in or affe ct in g in te rs ta te or fo rei gn

co m m erce by an y m ean s, in cl ud in g by co m pu te r, or th at was pr od uc ed

us in g m at eri al s th at ha ve be en m ai le d, or sh ip pe d or tra ns po rte d in or affe ct in g in te rs ta te or fo rei gn co m m erce by an y m ean s, in c l u di ng by

co m pu te r . . . .

-1 8-p o r n o g r a ph y th at ha d be en tra ns po rte d us in g a m ean s or faci li ty of in te rs ta te

co m m erce

. See i d.

9

E. Ju ry Ins truc tio ns 1 0

DeFo gg i ch al le ng es In st ru ct io n 37

, whi ch be gi ns wit h th e se nt en ce “ You ha ve

he ard ev id en ce t ha t t he de fen da nt co m m it te d offe ns es in vo lv in g chi ld po rn og rap hy

th at were no t ch arg ed in th e In di ct m en t.” DeFo gg i arg ue s th at th e se nt en ce sh ou ld

ha ve read : “ You ha ve he ard ev id en ce th at th e de fen da nt co m m it te d si m il ar act s in th e

pa st th at were no t ch arg ed in th e In di ct m en t.” Bu t D e F o g g i hi m se lf req ue st ed an

in st ru ct io n th at in cl ud ed th e la ng ua ge he no w ob jects to

, an d hi s ob

jecti on is th eref

or e

waiv ed

. See Uni te d St at es v. Dav is

, 20 16 W L 34 57 26 4, at *3 (8 th Ci r. Ju n. 24

, 20 16 )
(“ W he n a pa rty ex pr es sl y ag rees to an in st ru ct io n, th e do ct rin e of in vi te d erro r

ap pl ie s, an d an y ob

jecti on to th e in st ru ct io n is waiv ed .” (ci ta ti on s om it te d) ). Eve n

if th is is su e were pro pe rly be fo re u s, DeFo gg i fa il s t o o ffer an y arg um en t as to why

th e ob jecte d- to la ng ua ge is erro ne ou s. See Uni te d St at es v. By rd

, 54 2 F.2 d 10 26

, 10 29 (8 th Ci r. 19 76 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ph il li ps , 52 2 F.2 d 38 8, 39 1 (8 th Ci r.

19 75 )); se e al so Ahl be rg v. Ch ry sl er Co rp ., 48 1 F.3 d 63 0, 63 4 ( 8t h Ci r. 20 07 )
(h ol di ng po in ts no t m ean in gf ul ly arg ue d in op en in g br ie f are waiv ed ); Uni te d St at es

DeFo gg i al le ge d th at be cau se th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t th e di st ric t co ur t 9

ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al

. A s d i sc us se d in ou r

an al y si s of DeFo gg i ’s c h a l le ng e to th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce, th e ev id en ce ad eq ua te ly su pp or te d th e jury’ s ve rd ic t on al l b u t D e F og gi ’s co nv ic ti on fo r a ch il d

ex pl oi ta ti on en te rp ris e.

DeFo gg i as se rts va rio us erro rs in th e jury in st ru ct io ns as th ey rel at e to Co un t 1 0
1, in cl ud in g th e de fin it io n of th e ph ras e “ in co nc ert wit h.” He al so reas se rts ot he r ob jecti on s to th e in st ru ct io ns as th ey rel at e to Co un t 1 . Giv en ou r ru li ng ab ov e, we

ne ed no t ad dr es s t he se arg um en ts

.

-1 9-v. Cru z-Zu ni ga , 57 1 F.3 d 72 1, 72 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 9 ) ( “Th e di st ric t co ur t ha s wid e

di sc ret io n in fo rm

ul at i n g in st ru ct io ns .” (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Lon g, 97 7 F.2 d

12 64

, 12 72 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ))). DeFo gg i al so ren ews hi s ob jecti on reg ard in g a ve nu e

in st ru ct io n, b ut off

ers no arg um en t as to why or ho w th e di st ric t co ur t er red , so th is

ob jecti on is li ke wis e wai ve d. Se e Ahl be rg , 48 1 F .3d at 6 34

.

II I. Co ncl us io n

Bec au se DeFo gg i w as im

pr op erl y co nv ic te d of en ga gi ng in a ch il d ex pl oi ta ti on

en te rp ris e, we va cat e hi s co nv ic ti on an d rem an d fo r res en te nc in g

. W e affi rm th e 1 1

jud gm en ts in all ot he r res pe ct s.

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

DeFo gg i co nt en ds th at th e 20 -y ear m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce fo r a ch il d 1 1

ex pl oi ta ti on en te rp ris e is a vi ol at i o n of th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t’s ba n on cru el an d

un us ua l pu ni sh m en t. As we va cat e hi s co nv ic ti on on th at co un t, we ne ed no t ad dr es s DeFo gg i’s Eig ht h Am en dm en t ch al le ng e.

-2 0-