10-4802-cr

United States v. Ramos UN I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E S E C O N D C I R C U I T Augus t Term 201 1 Argue d: J anuar y 31, 2012 Deci ded: Jul y 2, 2012 Docke t No. 10-4 802-c r

________________________________ 

### U N I T E D 

### S T A T E S O F 

### AME R I C A 

### , Appel lee , v. 

### JAME S 

### RAMO S 

### , Defen dant-Appel lant .

________________________________ Befor e: W I N T E R , RA G G I , and C H I N , Circu it Ju dges .

Appea l fro m a j udgme nt ofthe Unite d Sta tes Distr ict C ourt for t he No rther n Dis trictof N ew Yo rk (D avid N. Hu rd, J. ) con victi ng de fenda nt-ap pella nt, f ollow ing a jury trial , of recei ving and p osses sing childporn ograp hy.

AFFIRMED.________________________________ B RE N DA K. S AN N E S , Ass istan t Uni ted S tates Attor ney, of co unsel , for Richa rd S. Hartu nian, Unit ed St ates Attor ney f or th e North ern D istri ct ofNew York, Syra cuse, New Y ork, for A

ppell ee . V I V I AN S H E V I T Z , Bro oklyn , NewYork , for Defen dant-Appel lant .

________________________________ C H I N , Circu it Ju dge :

Defen dant- appel lant James Ramo s app eals a jud gment of th e Uni ted S tates Dist rict Courtfor the N orthe rn Distr ict o f NewYorkconv ictin g himof r eceiv ing a nd posse ssingchil d por nogra phy i n vio latio n of 18 U. S.C. §§ 2252A (a)(2 )(A), 2252 A(a)( 5)(B) , 225 6(8)( A), a nd 22 56(8) (C). He ar gues, inter

alia , tha t (1) his FifthAmen dmentrigh t again st se lf-in crimi natio n was viol ated becau se he was compe lled as a parol ee tomake self -incr imina ting state ments durin g a m andat ory p olygr aph e xamin ation , and(2) the gover nmentfail ed topres ent s uffic ient evide nce t o pro ve he recei ved o r pos sesse d chi ld po rnogr aphy in vi olati on of feder al la w.

We AF FIRM.

- 2 -STATE MENT OF TH

E CAS E A. The F

acts Excep t as indic ated, the follo wing facts , dra wn prima rily from the e viden ce pr esent ed atthe suppr essio n heari ng an d the tria l bel ow, a re no t in dispu te. 1. Backg

round In 19 90, R amos was c onvic ted i n sta te co urt i n Sarat oga S pring s, Ne w Yor k, ofsexu ally abusi ng tw o sis ters, ages ten a nd th irtee n. A fter servi ng ap proxi matel y fou rteen years in p rison , he appli ed inFebr uary 2003 for r eleas e on parol e. I n his appl icati on, h e agr eed t o cer tain condi tions of su pervi sion, incl udingperm ittin g his paro le of ficerto visitand searc h his resi dence and perso n, re plyin g "promptly, full y andtrut hfull y" toany inqui ries from his parol e off icer, and "full y" co mplyi ng wi th an y ins truct ions from his p arole offi cer. He a lso a greedto r efrai n fro m "poss ess[i ng], seek[ ing] acces s to or re main[ ing] near any porno graph ic ma teria ls." The appli catio n was gran ted, and Ramos was relea sed f rom c ustod y to the s uperv isionof t he New Y ork S tate Divis ion o f Par ole i n May2003 . - 3 -On Ma rch 5 , 200 8, Ramos's paro le of ficertoldhim

that two n ew co nditi ons - - pol ygrap h tes ting and G PS monit oring-- w ere b eing addedto h is co nditi ons o f super visio n bec ause of ch anges in t he pr ocedu res f or se x offen ders on pa role. Ram os co mplai ned t o his paro le of ficer that the a dditi on ofthe condi tions "vio latedhis right s." Ramos spok e wit h his paro le of ficerseve ral m ore t imes after March5, 2 008, and e ventu ally agree d to parti cipat e in the polyg raph exami natio n, de spite his initi al re serva tions . 2. The S tatements On Ap ril 4 , 200 8, Ramos w ent t o the Prob ation Offic e fora po lygra ph te st. He fi rst s ignedseve ral f orms. In on e, he agre ed th at "f ailur e to answe r que stion s regar ding my co nform ance to pa role . . . cond ition s, inthe discr etionof t he Pa role Offic e andPoly graphExam iner, may be de emed as a failu re topart icipa te ina me aning ful w ay and b e submitte d . . . as a pa role . . . viol ation ." I n anoth er, h e sta ted: "I w ill p artic ipate in t he Di visio n of Parol e's p olygr aph p rogram as direc ted b y my P.O. I under standthis will incl ude p eriod ic po lygra ph se ssion s

- 4 -. . . . I will answ er al l que stion s ful ly an d tru thful ly as

well as co mply w/ an y dir ectiv es gi ven t o me by th e polyg raph exami ner." In yet athir d he ackno wledg ed th at:

5. Failu re tofull y coo perat e andpart icipa te in any a spectof t he po lygra ph ex amina tion sessi on, i nclud ing r efusa l to answe r que stion s durin g the exam inati on, m ay be grou nds f or viola tions of m y par ole. 6. Answe rs toques tions duri ng th e pol ygrap h exami natio n ses sion may b e use d in determinin g appro priat e san ction s to be impleme nted by th e Divis ion o f Par ole, inclu ding a par ole viola tion heari ng. Addit ional ly, a dmiss ions to cr imina l beh aviorwill resu lt inrefe rral to ap propr iate law e nforc ementauth oriti es fo r inves tigat ion a nd po ssibl e pro secut ion. 7. Any a dmiss ion t o cri minal beha vior durin g the polyg raph sessi on ma y be used again st me in a courtof l aw. (Appe llee' s App . at 137 ( empha ses o mitte d)).

In aninte rviewbefo re th e tes t was admi niste red, Ramos toldthe polyg raph exami ner t hat h e hadview ed bo th porno graph y andchil d por nogra phy o n his comp uter via t he inter net, "at l east somewhere betwe en tw elve and e ighte en times sinc e his rele ase t o par ole s uperv ision ." R amos took the t est, and t he re sults were inco nclus ive. Afte rward s, Ramos sign ed an"Adm issio ns Fo rm" i n whi ch he conf irmedthat - 5 -he ha d vie wed p ornog raphyand childporn ograp hy "o n at least

12 to18 d iffer ent o ccasi ons," on t he in terne t in his h ome. Ramos 's pa role offic er immedia tely impos ed a new c ondit ion of pa role forbi ddingRamo s fro m own ing o r ope ratin g a compu ter a nd us ing t he in terne t. 3. The Comput ers AfterRamo s lef t, th e par ole o ffice r rep orted Ramos 's admissi ons t o U.S . Imm igrat ion a nd Cu stoms Enfor cemen t ("I CE") agent s. T he same da y, Ap ril 4 , 200 8, two I CE ag ents went to Ramos's resi dence , a t raile r home. They foundhim outsi de th e tra iler. The y int roduc ed thems elves and said that they had i nform ationther e mig ht be childporn ograp hy onhis compu ter. Ramo s agr eed t o tal k to them insid e. T he ag ents did n ot pl ace R amos underarre st, nor d id th ey ha ndcuf f him . Th ey as ked h im qu estio ns, a nd he admit ted t hat h e hada co mpute r in his r eside nce, he us ed the c omput er toacce ss th e Int ernet , he had s earch ed fo r and viewe d chi ld po rnogr aphy on th e computer , andthus they wouldprob ably find childporn ograp hy onthe compu ter.

- 6 -At so me po int duringthe inter view, the agent s

read Ramos his Miran darigh ts. He signe d twocons ent 1 forms , one to asear ch ofhis resid ence and o ne toa se arch of hi s computerequi pment . He refu sed t o sig n a t hird document. The agent s the n con ducte d a s earchand seize d a deskt op co mpute r. As a foren sic e xamin ationwoul d lat er

revea l, Ramos h ad us ed th e computerto v isit child porno graph y web sites and view image s of childporn ograp hy. One o f the harddriv es ha d del eted "cook ie" f iles from websi tes w ith n ames indic ative of s exual inte rest in mi nors. There were two delet ed we b pag es wi th im ages that were not

recov erabl e, bu t tha t bor e the name s "Lo lita Photo s" an d "9- 12yr Pics. " Th e har d dri ve ha d bee n use d to condu ct a Googl e sea rch u sing words suchas " twink ," wh ich s ugges ted a

searc h forchil d por nogra phy. One of th e har d dri ves conta ined softw are c alled"Sma rt Pr otect or Pr o" th at en abled

At the suppression hearing, Ramos denied receiving 1 Mirandawarnings at his home on April 4, 2008, although he testified that he was shown a piece of paper that "could have been" Mirandawarnings. The district court found, however, that Ramos was not in custody and that, in any event, Mirandawarnings were given to him. - 7 -a use r to delet e his brow ser h istor y. T here were some 140

image s of childporn ograp hy indele ted s pace; the file names indic ated these had been tempo rary inter net f iles that had been delet ed.

On No vembe r 20, 2008 , a g rand jury in th e Nor thern Distr ict o f NewYorkindi cted Ramos for knowi ngly recei ving and p osses sing childporn ograp hy. The n ext d ay, I CE ag ents and t wo pa role offic ers r eturn ed toRamo s's r eside nce t o

arres t him . Ag ain, he wa s out side the t raile r. T he offic ers a sked him t o ste p ins ide s o tha t the y cou ld ta lk to him, and h e agr eed. Insi de, t he of ficer s adv ised Ramos he was b eing arres ted a nd ha ndcuf fed h im. The p arole offi cers condu cted a swe ep ofthe trail er todete rmine whet her a nyone else was p resen t andto l ook f or ev idenc e of any p arole viola tion. The y sawcomp uter equipment lyingin p lain view and d iscov ered benea th th e she et ofRamo s's b ed a lapto p compu ter t hat w as ha lfwayopen . Th e par ole o ffice rs op ened the l aptop , cli cked on anicon , andfoun d ima ges o f wha t appea red t o be childporn ograp hy. The o ffice rs se ized the lapto p andobta ined a war rant to se arch it fu rther . - 8 -The l aptopwas manuf actur ed inKore a andits hard

drive was manuf actur ed inThai land. The harddriv e hadon it co mpute r sof tware call ed "M icros oft P ictur e It, " whi ch permi tted a use r to alterimag es. The l aptopcont ained image s mod ifiedto a ppearas i f chi ldrenwere enga ged i n

sexua lly e xplic it ac ts. The o rigin al, u nalte red i mages of two y oung girls , pan ties, and a pen is -- whic h hadbeenused to cr eate the a ltere d ima ge -- were alsofoun d on the compu ter. B. Proce edings Bel ow

On Ma rch 1 3, 20 09, agran d jur y in the N orthe rn Distr ict o f NewYorkretu rned a sup ersed ing i ndict ment again st Ramos c hargi ng hi m wit h twocoun ts ofrece iving childporn ograp hy, i n vio latio n of 18 U. S.C. §§ 2252A (a)(2 )(A) and 2 256(8 )(A), and two c ounts of p osses sion of ch ild p ornog raphy , in viola tion of 18 U.S. C. §§ 2252A (a)(5 )(B), 2256 (8)(A ), an d 225 6(8)( C). The t wo se ts of posse ssionand recei pt ch arges refe rred, resp ectiv ely, to the t wo co mpute rs se ized on Ap ril 4 and November 2 1, 20 08.

- 9 -In Se ptemb er 20 09, R amos movedto s uppre ss hi s

state ments to p arole offi cers and t he ev idenc e sei zed during the s earch es re sulti ng fr om hi s sta temen ts. The d istri ct courtdeni ed th e mot ions from the b ench on Ap ril 5 , 201 0, follo wing an ev ident iary heari ng. With respe ct toRamo s's state ments made duri ng th e pol ygrap h examinat ion, the distr ict c ourt held that the s tatements were admis sible becau se Ramos w as no t in custo dy. 2

Ramos proc eededto t rial pro s e , wit h adv isory

couns el. Follo wing a thr ee-da y tri al, t he ju ry convi cted Ramos on t hree count s of recei ving and p osses sing childporn ograp hy. 3

Although Ramos had argued generally to the district 2 court that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated by the "coercive" circumstances of the polygraph examination, he did not invoke the Murphy line of cases discussed below. See Minnesota v. Murphy , 465 U.S. 420 (1984). The government contends, therefore, that Ramos's Murphy argument is waived. We disagree, as we conclude that Ramos preserved the issue by arguing in the district court that he was forced to participate in the polygraph examination and that this compulsion was coercive in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

One of the counts was dismissed at the government's 3 request at the start of the trial. Ramos was convicted on Count 1, which charged receipt of child pornography in connection with the computer seized on April 4, 2008, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A) and 2256(8)(A); Count 2, which charged - 10 -Ramos was sente nced on No vembe r 23, 2010 . Be cause

Ramos had previ ouslybeenconv ictedof s exual ly ab using child ren, he wa s sub ject to a manda tory minimum se ntenc e of impri sonme nt offift een y ears. See18 U .S.C. § 22 52A(b )(1). The d istri ct co urt s enten ced R amos to th e sta tutor y min imum: a term of 180 m onths ' imp risonment on ea ch ofthe three count s, tobe s ervedconc urren tly.

This appea l fol lowed .

DISCU SSION Two p rinci pal i ssues are prese nted: (1) whet her Ramos was compe lled to in crimi nate himse lf du ring the polyg raph exami natio n in viola tion of hi s rig hts u nder the FifthAmen dment , and(2) wheth er th e gov ernme nt pr esent ed suffi cientevid ence at tr ial t o sup port Ramos 's co nvict ions for k nowin g rec eipt and p osses sion of ch ild p ornog raphy .

possession of child pornography, in connection with the computer seized on April 4, 2008, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) and 2256(8)(A); and Count 4 (redesignated Count 3 at trial), which charged possession of child pornography, in connection with the laptop computer seized on November 21, 2008, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B), 2256(8)(A), and 2256(8)(C). - 11 -I. The Right Again st Self-In crimi nation

A. Appli cableLaw The F ifth Amendment provi des t hat n o per son " shall be co mpell ed inany crimi nal c ase t o be a wit ness again st himse lf." U.S. Cons t. amend. V. T he pr ivile ge pe rmits a perso n to refus e to answe r que stion s, inform al orinfo rmal proce eding s, wh ere t he an swers migh t be used to in crimi nate him i n fut ure c rimin al pr oceed ings. Minne sota v. Mu rphy , 465 U .S. 4 20, 4 26 (1 984); accor d Unite d Sta tes v . Jen nings , 652 F .3d 2 90, 3 03 (2 d Cir . 201 1). In th e sup ervis ion conte xt, w e hav e hel d tha t a c ondit ion r equir ing p olygr aph tests for defen dants conv ictedof s ex cr imes does not viola te th e rig ht ag ainstself -incr imina tion as lo ng as the super visee reta ins t he ri ght t o cha lleng e in a cou rt oflaw the u se ofincr imina ting state ments as v iolat ions of hi s FifthAmen dmentrigh ts. See U nited Stat es v. John son , 446 F.3d 272, 278-8 0 (2dCir. 2006 ) (ci ting Asherman v . Mea chum , 957 F .2d 9 78 (2 d Cir . 199 2) (e n ban c)).

As a gener al ma tter, the FifthAmen dmentpriv ilege is no t sel f-exe cutin g. Murphy , 465 U.S. at 4 25; Jenni ngs , - 12 -652 F .3d a t 303 -04. Rath er, t he pr ivile ge mu st be invo ked:

an in dividual must c laim the p rivil ege t o be prote cted by it. An in dividual who ma kes s elf-i ncrim inati ng st ateme nts witho ut cl aimin g the priv ilege is d eemednot to ha ve be en "comp elled " butto h ave s pokenvolu ntari ly. See Murphy , 465 U.S. at 42 9; Jenni ngs , 652 F.3dat 3 03-04 .

One e xcept ion e xists for the " so-ca lled 'pena lty'

cases ," wh ere t he go vernment c ompel s an indiv idual "to forgo the F ifth Amendment privi lege by th reate ning to impose

econo mic o r oth er sa nctio ns 'c apabl e of forci ng . . . self- incri minat ion.' " Murphy , 465 U.S. at 4 34 (quotin g Lefko witz v. Cu nningham , 431 U.S. 801, 806 (1977 )). Where the g overnment compe ls anindi vidua l to speakby t hreat ening him w ith asubs tanti al pe naltyfor exerc isinghis Fifth Amendment rightto r emainsile nt, t he pr ivile ge is self

execu ting. Id. at 43 4-35.

In th e sup ervis ion c ontex t, ifa pr obati on or parol e off icer tells a su pervi see, expli citlyor i mplic itly, that invoc ationof t he pr ivile ge wo uld l ead t o rev ocati on of super visio n, th e sup ervis ee is deemed tohave beencomp elled

- 13 -to sp eak a nd hi s fai lure to as sert the p rivil ege w ould be

excus ed. Id. at 43 5 (de scrib ing t his s cenar io as "the class ic pe naltysitu ation "). The p enalt y exc eptio n doe s not apply , how ever, mere ly be cause the terms of p robat ion requi re a proba tione r to appea r bef ore h is pr obati on of ficer and t ell t he tr uth " in al l mat ters. " Id . at 433-3 9. Rathe r, a super visee is d eemedto h ave b een c ompel led t o speakonlywher e he is re quire d by the g overnment "to c hoose betwe en ma king incri minat ing s tatements and j eopar dizin g his condi tiona l lib erty by re maini ng si lent. " Id. at 4 36. In determinin g whe ther a per son's incr imina ting state ments were compe lled in su ch a "pena lty c ase," we e xamin e the tota lity of th e cir cumst ances . See Unite d Sta tes v . Rob erts , 660 F.3d 149, 156 ( 2d Ci r. 20 11), cert. deni ed , 132 S. C t. 16 40 (2012 ). In Murphy , the prob ation er wa s requiredby h is terms of p robat ion t o be truth ful w ith h is pr obati on of ficer "in a ll ma tters ." Id. at 4 22. He wa s inf ormedthatfail ure to co mply with his c ondit ions of pr obati on "c ould resul t in his r eturnto t he se ntenc ing c ourt for aprob ation

- 14 -revoc ationhear ing." Id . In deed, Murp hy un derst ood t hat

"revo catio n of his p robat ion w as th reate ned i f he was untru thful withhis proba tion offic er." Id . at 434.

Nonet heles s, th e Cou rt he ld th at th e pro batio ner

was n ot co mpell ed toincr imina te hi mselfwhenhe a dmitt ed to his p robat ion o ffice r tha t he had c ommit ted arape and murde r. Id . at 424, 439. The Courtnote d tha t the proba tione r hadnot been told that his " asser tion of th e privi lege would

resu lt inthe impos itionof apena lty." Id . at 43 8 (emphasi s add ed). The Courtheldfurt her t hat e ven if th e pro batio ner d id be lieve thathis proba tion mightbe revok ed ifhe c laime d the priv ilege , "th at be lief wouldnot have been reaso nable " bec ause the s tate couldnot "cons titut ional ly ca rry o ut a threa t to revok e pro batio n for the l egiti mate exerc ise o f the Fift h Ame ndmen t pri vileg e." Id . But s ee Ga rrity v. New Je rsey , 385 U.S. 493, 496- 98 (1967 ) (ho ldingthatstat ement s wer e compelle d whe re defen dants were expr esslyinfo rmed that a ref usal to an swer quest ions aboutposs ible crimi nal c onduc t wou ld re sult in loss of th eir j obs). In otherword s, "[ s]o l ong a s [a]

- 15 -proba tione r has not been told that he wo uld l ose h is fr eedom

if he invo ked h is Fi fth Amendment p rivil ege," his answe rs to his p robat ion o ffice r's questi ons a re no t dee med c ompel led. Jenni ngs , 652 F.3dat 3 04.

On ap peal from the d istri ct co urt's deni al ofa motio n to suppr ess, we re view its c onclu sions of l aw de no vo and i ts fa ctual find ings for c lear error , vie wing the evide nce i n the ligh t mos t fav orabl e to the g overnment. Unite d Sta tes v . Gar cia , 339 F.3d116, 118- 19 (2 d Cir . 2003) . B. Appli cation Here, Ramo s's p artic ipati on inthe requi red polyg raph exami natio n is not i tselfthe basis for the claimed co nstit ution al vi olati on. Rathe r, th e que stion prese nted is wh etherthe incri minat ing s tatements Ramos made durin g the cour se ofthatexam inati on we re admissi ble u nder the F ifth Amendment. As Ramos did not i nvoke his Fifth Amendment rightagai nst s elf-i ncrim inati on wh en he was

- 16 -inter viewe d forthe polyg raph exami natio n on April 4, 2 008, 4

that quest ion t hus t urns on wh etherhis incri minat ory state ments were comp elledas c ontemplate d by Murphy . We concl ude t hey w ere n ot.

First , Ram os wa s not"tol d tha t he would lose his freed om ifhe i nvoke d his Fift h Ame ndmen t pri vileg e." Jenni ngs , 652 F.3dat 3 04 (e mphas is ad ded); see Murphy , 465 U.S. at 43 5 ("[ I]f t he st ate, eithe r exp ressl y or by impli catio n, as serts thatinvo catio n of the p rivil ege would lead to re vocat ion o f pro batio n, itwoul d [cr eate] the class ic pe naltysitu ation. . . .") (emp hasis adde d)). Rathe r, th e con sent forms he s ignedwarn ed hi m onl y tha t his failu re tofull y andtrut hfull y ans wer a ll qu estio ns pu t to

Although Ramos protested on March 5, 2008, that the 4 imposition of the two new conditions of parole "violated his rights," that statement was not sufficient to invoke the privilege. Even liberally construed, in "'the entire context in which the claimant spoke,'" the passing remark was too vague and too far removed in time to be considered an invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights for his interview on April 4, 2008. Bradley v. Meachum , 918 F.2d 338, 342 (2d Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. Goodwin , 470 F.2d 893, 902 (5th Cir. 1972)). At the very least, we cannot say that, when the evidence is taken in the light most favorable to the government, the district court clearly erred in not finding that Ramos asserted his Fifth Amendment rights by objecting on March 5, 2008. See Garcia , 339 F.3d at 118-19. - 17 -him b y his paro le of ficer could leadto t he in itiat ion o f viola tion proce eding s or the r evoca tion of hi s par ole. 5 This was p recis ely t he si tuati on fa ced b y the prob ation er in Murphy , whowas told that his f ailur e to be tr uthfu l in all matte rs " could resul t in revoc ationof p robat ion." 465 U.S. at 43 6 (emphasi s add ed). Yet, the Courtheldthatthe proba tione r in Murphy was not c ompel led t o spe ak. Id. at 436-3 9. Secon d, th ere i s no evide nce t hat R amos subje ctive ly fe lt co mpell ed toansw er in crimi natin g quest ions durin g the poly graphexam inati on orthe ICE agent s' la ter i nvest igati on. See i d. at 43 7-38 (conc ludin g there was no Fi fth Amendment v iolat ion b ecaus e, am ong o ther facto rs, t here was n o dir ect e viden ce ofsubj ectiv e

SeeAppellant's App. at 35 (Consent for Polygraph 5 Examination: "failure to answer questions regarding my conformance to parole . . . conditions, in the discretion of the Parole Office and Polygraph Examiner, may be deemed as a failure to participate in a meaningful way and be submitted . . . as a parole . . . violation"); Appellee's App. at 137 (Notice of Polygraph Examination Requirements and Procedures: "Failure to fully cooperate and participate in any aspect of the polygraph examination session, including refusal to answer questions during the examination, may be grounds for violations of my parole." (emphasis omitted)). - 18 -compu lsion ). D uringthe suppr essio n hea ring, Ramo s was

quest ionedabou t forms he sign ed gr antin g the ICE agent s

conse nt tosear ch hi s home on April 4, 2 008, and t estif ied: "If I did not s ign t hose documents, ther e was no d oubt in my mind that I wou ld goto p rison . I wouldbe v iolat ed on parol e andbe s ent b ack t o pri son." Ram os, h oweve r, of fered

no su ch te stimo ny re gardi ng hi s con sent to th e pol ygrap h exami natio n or to an sweri ng th e ICE agen ts' questi ons. Rathe r, th e rec ord s hows that Ramos even tuall y agr eed t o parti cipat e in the p olygr aph e xamin ationwith out e xpres sing any r eserv ation s, an d tha t he was c apabl e of decli ning the ICE a gents ' requests for informatio n as illus trate d by his refus al toprov ide awrit ten s tatement. Thus , the reco rd does not s uppor t a f indin g of subje ctive comp ulsio n.

Third , Ram os co uld n ot ha ve re asona bly b eliev ed that his p arole woul d be revok ed fo r exe rcisi ng hi s Fif th Amendment right s. A s exp laine d in the S upreme Cou rt's decis ion i n Murphy , the Stat e of New Y ork c ould not h ave const ituti onall y car ried out athre at torevo ke Ramos's parol e bec ause he in vokedhis FifthAmen dmentrigh t to

- 19 -remai n sil ent. See i d. at 4 38. Indee d, th e NewYorkcour ts

have held that "the State may not p unisha pa rolee for invok ing h is Fi fth Amendment p rivil ege b y rev okinghis parol e." Peopl e v. Dyla , 536 N.Y. S.2d 799, 811-1 2 (Ap p. Div. 2d De p't 1 988) (citi ng Murphy , 465 U.S. at 4 38-40 ).

We co nclud e, th erefo re, t hat t he ci rcums tance s of Ramos 's po lygra ph ex amina tion on Ap ril 4 , 200 8, di d not creat e a p enalt y sit uatio n suc h tha t his Fift h Ame ndmen t privi lege again st se lf-in crimi natio n bec ame s elf-e xecut ing. The d istri ct co urt d id no t errin d enyin g Ram os's motio n to suppr ess h is in crimi natin g sta temen ts an d the phys ical evide nce o btain ed th ereaf ter. 6

Ramos also argues on appeal that the searches of his 6 home and seizure of the computers on both April 4, 2008, and November 21, 2008, violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. We reject the arguments.

First, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Ramos voluntarily consented to the April 4, 2008, search and seizure. See United States v. Snype , 441 F.3d 119, 131 (2d Cir. 2006). Although Ramos testified that he felt compelled to sign the consent forms, he also stated that he was capable of refusing the ICE agents' requests for information. Further, Ramos's claim of compulsion is contradicted by the ICE agents' testimony that Ramos was cooperative during the April 4, 2008, home visit. See Ceraso v. Motiva Enters., LLC , 326 F.3d 303, 316 (2d Cir. 2003) ("In reviewing findings for clear error, we are not allowed to second-guess either the trial court's credibility assessments or its choice between permissible - 20 -II. Suffi cienc y of Evidence In co nside ring a def endan t's c halle nge t o the suffi cienc y of the e viden ce, w e "vi ew th e evi dence pres ented in th e lig ht mo st fa vorab le tothe gover nment , and. . . draw all r eason able infer ences in i ts fa vor, affirming the jury verdi ct un less no ra tiona l tri er offactcoul d hav e foundall of th e ele ments of t he cr ime b eyonda re asona ble doubt ." Unite d Sta tes v . Des inor , 525 F.3d193, 203 (2d Cir. 2008) (cit ationand inter nal quotat ion m arks omitt ed) (omis sion in or igina l); accor d Uni ted S tatesv. A dekan bi , 675 F .3d 1 78, 1 82 n. 3 (2dCir. 2012 ). Ajury 's ve rdictmust be up held if " any rati onal trierof f act c ould have found competing inferences.").

Second, the parole officers' warrantless search of Ramos's home on November 21, 2008, was consistent with the Fourth Amendment because it was "rationally and reasonably related to the performance of the parole officer[s'] duty." United States v. Grimes , 225 F.3d 254, 258-29 & n.4 (2d Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); accord United States v. Barner , 666 F.3d 79, 84-85 (2d Cir. 2012). Specifically, the officers searched Ramos's trailer in accordance with the conditions of Ramos's parole, which permitted them to search and inspect his home without any suspicion. See United States v. Reyes , 283 F.3d 446, 462 (2d Cir. 2002). Further, the parole officers' search of Ramos's bedroom was justified by the need to investigate whether Ramos had committed any new parole violations. See Barner , 666 F.3d at 85.

- 21 -the e ssent ial e lemen ts ofthe crime beyo nd a reaso nable

doubt ." Jacks on v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979 ).

Two s uffic iencyissu es ar e pre sente d: fi rst, wheth er vi ewingimag es intemp oraryinte rnet files const itute s rec eipt or po ssess ion o f chi ld po rnogr aphy, and,

secon d, wh etherusin g computerequi pmentmanu factu red a broad to cr eate "morp hed" image s of childporn ograp hy me ets t he inter state or f oreig n commerce element o f the crimes of convi ction . A. Temporary Inter net F iles Ramos argu es, w ith r espec t to the c omput er se ized on Ap ril 4 , 200 8, th at th e evi dence fail ed toprov e tha t he knowi ngly recei ved o r pos sesse d ima ges f rom t he in terne t becau se th e evi dence show ed on ly th at he view ed im ages in tempo rary inter net o r "ca che" files (wit hout savin g the m) and t hat t he me re vi ewingof c hild porno graph y sto red i n tempo rary inter net f iles was i nsuff icien t to susta in a convi ctionunde r the stat ute a s it then exist ed.

- 22 -Ramos was charg ed wi th re ceiptof c hild

porno graph y in viola tion of 18 U.S. C. § 2252A (a)(2 )(A) and posse ssionof c hild porno graph y in viola tion of 18 U.S. C. § 2252A (a)(5 )(B). At the t ime R amos commi tted the a cts i n quest ion, the s tatut e pro videdin p ertin ent p art:

(a) Any p ersonwho

-- (2) k nowin gly r eceiv es . . . ( A) any c hild porno graph y tha t has been maile d, orship ped o r trans porte d in inter state or forei gn co mmerc e by any means, inclu ding by co mpute r, . . . [or] (5) . . . (B) k nowin gly posse sses any b ook, magaz ine, perio dical , fil m, vi deota pe, compu ter d isk, or an y oth er mater ial t hat c ontai ns animag e of ch ild p ornog raphythathas been maile d, orship ped o r trans porte d in inter state or forei gn co mmerc e by any means, inclu ding by co mpute r, orthat was p roduc ed us ing m ateri als that have been maile d, or shipp ed ortran sport ed in inter state or f oreig n commerce , inclu ding by co mpute r, . . . [comm its acrime].

- 23 -18 U. S.C. § 225 2A(a) (2)(A ), (5 )(B) (effe ctive July27, 2006

to Oc tober7, 2 008). 7

The s tatut e doe s notdefi ne re ceiptor p osses sion, and c ourts have give n the se te rms t heir plainmean ing. See, e.g. , Unit ed St ates v. Pr uitt , 638 F.3d763, 766 (11thCir. 2011) (percuri am) ( "The ordin ary meanin g of 'rece ive' is 'to k nowin gly a ccept '; 't o tak e pos sessi on ordeli very of'; or 't o tak e in throu gh th e min d or sense s.'" (quot ing Webst er's Third

New Internatio nal Dictio nary: Unab ridge d 1894 (1993 )), cert. deni ed , 132 S. C t. 11 3 (20 11)); Unite d State s v. Romm , 455 F.3d990, 998- 1000 (9th Cir. 2006) ("'Po ssess ion' is '[ t]he fact of ha ving or ho ldingprop erty

On October 8, 2008 -- after the seizure of Ramos's 7 desktop computer on April 4, 2008, but before the seizure of Ramos's laptop on November 21, 2008 -- Congress amended § 2252A(a)(5)(B) to add the words "or knowingly accesses with intent to view," to make clear that accessing child pornography to view it was proscribed. SeeEnhancing the Effective Child Pornography Prosecution Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-358, § 203(b), 122 Stat. 4001, 4003 (2008). A Senate report explained that the amendment "fills a gap in existing law that has led some courts to overturn convictions of possessors of child pornography. It amends the child pornography possession offense to clarify that it also covers knowingly accessing child pornography on the Internet with intent to view child pornography." S. Rep. No. 110-332, at 5 (2008), available at 2008 WL 1885750 (2008).

- 24 -in on e's p ower; the exerc ise o f dom inionoverprop erty. '"

(quot ing Black 's La w Dic tiona ry 1183 (7th ed. 1 999)) (alte ratio n in origi nal)) ; Unite d Sta tes v . Tucker , 305 F.3d 1193, 1204 (10t h Cir . 200 2) (" Posse ssionis d efine d as 'the holdi ng orhavi ng so methi ng (m ateri al orimma teria l) as one's own, or i n one 's co ntrol .'" ( quoti ng Oxfor d English Dicti onary (2d e d. 19 89))) .

This Courthas not y et de cidedwhet her v iewin g image s sto red i n temporar y int ernetfile s is suffi cientto estab lish knowi ng re ceiptor p osses sion of ch ild porno graph y. See Unite d Sta tes v . Fal so, 544 F.3d 110, 121 n.13 (2d C ir. 2 008); Unite d Sta tes v . Mar tin , 426 F.3d68, 77 (2 d Cir . 200 5) (whethe r "vi ewing " chi ld po rnogr aphy on inter net i s leg al is "an open quest ion") . Ot her C ircui ts, howev er, h ave u pheldchil d por nogra phy r eceip t and posse ssionconv ictio ns wh ere adefe ndantview ed ch ild porno graph y sto red i n temporar y int ernetfile s on a compu ter. See, e.g. , Pruit t , 638 F.3dat 7 66-67 ("A perso n 'know inglyrece ives' chil d por nogra phy u nder 18 U. S.C. §

- 25 -2252A (a)(2 ) whe n he inten tiona lly v iews, acqu ires, or

accep ts ch ild p ornog raphyon acomp uter from an ou tside

sourc e," whethe r or not h e "ac ts tosave the image s to a hard drive , to edit them, or o therw ise t o exe rt mo re co ntrol

over them. "); Unite d Sta tes v . Kai n , 589 F.3d945, 948- 50 (8th Cir. 2009) ("Th e pre sence of c hild porno graph y in tempo rary inter net a nd or phan files on acomp uter' s har d drive is evide nce [, al thoug h notconc lusiv e,] o f pri or posse ssionof t hat p ornog raphy. . . .") ; Romm , 455 F.3dat 998, 1002 (conc ludin g tha t kno wingl y tak ing p osses sion of files in i ntern et ca che, by ac cessi ng an d man ipula ting them, const itute d kno wing recei pt ofthos e fil es); Unite d Sta tes v. Ba ss , 411 F.3d1198 , 120 1-02 (10thCir. 2005 ) (af firmi ng convi ctionfor knowi ng po ssess ion where childporn ograp hy files view ed oninte rnet were autom atica lly s aved to ha rd drive ). But s ee Un ited State s v. Flyer , 633 F.3d911, 918- 20 (9 th Ci r. 20 11) ( vacat ing c onvic tion for p osses sion under § 225 2(a)( 4)(B) and (b)(2 ) whe re im ages were locat ed in "unal locat ed sp ace" for d elete d dat a on defen dant' s

- 26 -compu ter's harddriv e andgove rnmen t pre sente d no evide nce

that defen dant couldor d id ac cess files ).

In th e cir cumst ances here , we hold that the evide nce w as su ffici ent t o pro ve th at Ramos w as gu ilty of knowi ngly recei ving and p osses sing childporn ograp hy un der the s tatut e as it wa s wor ded i n Apr il 20 08, e ven a ssumi ng he viewe d the imag es inques tion only in te mpora ry in terne t files and did n ot sa ve th em on to hi s har d dri ve.

First , giv ing t he wo rds t heir plainmean ing, Ramos clear ly "r eceiv e[d]" and "poss esse[ d]" t he im ages, even thoug h the y wer e onl y in his t empor ary i ntern et fi les. As the e viden ce sh owed below , Ram os ha d some con trol over the image s eve n wit hout savin g the m -- he co uld v iew t hem o n his

scree n, he coul d lea ve th em onhis scree n foras l ong a s he kept his c omput er on , he couldcopyand attac h the m to an email and send them to so meone , he couldprin t the m, an d he could(wit h the righ t sof tware ) mov e the imag es fr om a cache d fil e to otherfile s andthenviewor m anipu late them off-l ine. See R omm , 455 F.3dat 9 98 (r elyin g on witne ss's

- 27 -testi mony as towhatcoul d be done with cache d fil es);

Tucke r , 305 F.3dat 1 204-0 5 (re lyingon w itnes s's t estim ony as towhatcoul d be done with cache d fil es). Henc e, as the evide nce s howedbelo w, anindi vidua l whoview s ima ges o n the inter net a ccept s the m ont o his comp uter, and he ca n sti ll

exerc ise d omini on an d con trol over them, eventhou gh th ey are i n cac he fi les. In o ther words , he recei ves a nd posse sses them.

Secon d, he re th ere w as ample e viden ce th at Ramos inten tiona lly s earch ed fo r ima ges o f chi ld po rnogr aphy, foundthem , andknow inglyacce pted them onto his c omput er, albei t temporar ily. The brows ing h istor y on his d eskto p compu ter s howedthatRamo s int entio nallysear ched for c hild porno graph y on the i ntern et. See, e.g. , Pruit t , 638 F.3dat 767 ( uphol ding defen dant' s con victi on wh ere " inves tigat ors founda re cord of in terne t sea rches usin g terms re latedto childporn ograp hy . . . a nd a recor d of visit s to websi tes with a chi ld-po rnogr aphy conne ction "); Kain , 589 F.3dat 949-5 0 (fi ndingsuff icien t evi dence for knowi ng po ssess ion

- 28 -where defe ndant 's br owsin g his tory showe d rep eatedacce ssing

of ch ild p ornog raphywebs ites) . Infact , he viewe d some 140 image s of childporn ograp hy, which were store d on the compu ter i n temporar y int ernetfile s. H e kne w tha t the se image s wou ld be foun d on his c omput er, a s he told the I CE agent s tha t the y wou ld pr obabl y fin d chi ld po rnogr aphy there . Fu rther , he had a lso a ttemp ted t o del ete t he tempo rary inter net f iles and b rowsi ng hi storyfromhis compu ter. See Bass , 411 F.3dat 1 202 ( "[T]h e jur y her e

reaso nablycoul d hav e inf erredthatBass knewchil d porno graph y was auto matic ally savedto h is mo ther' s computer basedon e viden ce th at Ba ss at tempt ed toremo ve th e image s.").

Accor dingl y, we conc lude that there was suffi cient evide nce f rom which a rat ional trie r of fact couldhave foundthatRamo s kno wingl y rec eivedand posse ssed child porno graph y on the c omput er se ized on Ap ril 4 , 200 8.

- 29 -B. Interstateor F oreig n Com merce The l aptopseiz ed onNove mber 21, 2 008, conta ined "morp hed i mages " -- image s dig itall y alt ered to de pict child ren a ppare ntly engag ing i n sex ual a ctivi ty. Ramos argue s tha t the gove rnmen t fai led t o est ablis h tha t the origi nal o r "so urce" imag es came th roughthe inter net o r other wise trave led i n int ersta te an d for eign comme rce. He furth er ar gues that the g overnment faile d to show that the image s wer e pro ducedusin g mat erial s tha t hadtrav eled in inter state or f oreig n commerce . See18 U .S.C. § 2252A (a)(5 )(B). Hen ce, h e con tends , the re wa s ins uffic ient evide nce o f a n exus to in terst ate o r for eign comme rce.

This Courthas rejec ted t he ar gumen t tha t a simil ar st atute , 18 U.S.C . § 2 251, is un const ituti onal when appli ed tochil d por nogra phy t hat h as no t cro ssed state lines . Unite d Sta tes v . Hol ston , 343 F.3d83, 90 (2 d Cir . 2003) . Fo r ourpurp oses here, ther e is no me aning ful disti nctio n bet ween § 225 1 and§ 22 52A. We held in Holst on 8 Section 2251(a) criminalizes sexual exploitation of 8 children and, employing language virtually identical to the

- 30 -that even childporn ograp hy cr eatedenti rely intra state had

a sig nific ant i mpacton i nters tate comme rce b ecaus e the produ cer o f the porn ograp hy su pplie d the inte rstat e mar ket, and w e rej ecteda Co mmerc e Cla use c halle nge t o the fede ral childporn ograp hy la ws. See i d. at 8 8-91; accor d Uni ted State s v. Harri s , 358 F.3d221, 222 (2d C ir. 2 004). Hen ce,

we co nside r her e the spec ific quest ion o f whe ther the inter state commerce nexus is e stabl ishedby adefe ndant 's

use o f a f oreig n-man ufact ured compu ter t o pro duce child porno graph y.

This Courthas not c onsid ered the i ssue in a publi shed decis ion. Ot her C ircui ts, h oweve r, ha ve he ld 9 that a def endan t's u se ofnon- Ameri can-m ade c omput ers o r digit al equipme nt toproduce c hild porno graph y sat isfie s the

language of § 2252A, bars producing a "visual depiction" of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor using materials shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).

But see United States v. Porter , 184 F. App'x 112, 114 9 (2d Cir. 2006) (summary order) (holding, in rejecting challenge to sufficiency of evidence as to interstate commerce nexus, "government may satisfy this element by showing that the computer that produced the images has traveled in interstate commerce").

- 31 -inter state or f oreig n commerce element. See Unite d Sta tes

v. Schene , 543 F.3d627, 639 (10thCir. 2008 ) (fi nding suffi cientevid ence of in terst ate o r for eign nexus unde r § 2252A (a)(5 )(B) where gove rnmen t's e viden ce sh owed "each 'imag e of childporn ograp hy' h ad be en co pied or do wnloa ded to Sc hene' s [Si ngapo re-ma nufac tured ] har d dri ve inone capac ity o r ano ther" ); Unit ed St ates v. Mu gan , 441 F.3d622, 628-3 0 (8t h Cir . 200 6) (h oldin g int ersta te co mmerc e ele ment of § 2252Afulf illedwher e chi ld po rnogr aphy store d on digit al me mory card trans porte d in inter state and forei gn

comme rce); Unit ed St ates v. An derso n , 280 F.3d1121 , 112 3-25 (7th Cir. 2002) (hol ding juris dicti onal prongwas met where gover nmentprov ed de fenda nt do wnloa ded o r cop ied i mages of childporn ograp hy on to ha rd dr ive m anufa cture d in Malay sia and r efurb ishedin S ingap ore); Unite d Sta tes v . Gua gliar do , 278 F .3d 8 68, 8 71 (9 th Ci r. 20 02) ( holdi ng ju risdi ction al prongwas met where gover nmentprov ed de fenda nt co pied image s ont o computerdisk s man ufact ured abroa d). We ag ree with these deci sions , andholdthatthe act o f usi ng

- 32 -compu ter e quipment m anufa cture d out side the U nitedStat es to

produ ce ch ild p ornog raphymeet s the juri sdict ional requi remen t of § 225 2A(a) (5)(B ). 1 0

The m orphe d ima ges a t iss ue he re we re fo und o n Ramos 's la ptop, whic h was manu factu red i n Kor ea. Its h ard drive was manuf actur ed inThai land. Bot h pie ces o f equipment were thus mater ials that had b een " shipp ed or trans porte d in inter state or f oreig n commerce " und er § 2252A (a)(5 )(B). The gove rnmen t als o off ered into evide nce two " innoc ent" image s fou nd onthe lapto p tha t wer e the

sourc es fo r the morp hed p ornog raphyas w ell a s evi dence that Ramos 's la ptop conta ined Micro soft Pictu re It , an image editi ng pr ogramthatthe jury couldinfe r Ram os us ed to

Some courts have held that the mere copying or 1 0 downloading of an image is "production" for purposes of the federal child pornography statutes. See, e.g. , United States v. Dickson , 632 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 2011); Schene , 543 F.3d at 638-39; United States v. Maxwell , 386 F.3d 1042, 1052 (11th Cir. 2004), vacated on other grounds , 546 U.S. 801 (2005); Anderson , 280 F.3d at 1125 ("Computerized images are produced when computer equipment is used to copy or download the images." (citing United States v. Angle , 234 F.3d 326, 341 (7th Cir. 2000))); Guagliardo , 278 F.3d at 871. We need not decide the issue, as Ramos did far more than simply copy or download images here: the evidence showed that he altered innocent images and created "morphed" images, thereby producing child pornography.

- 33 -creat e the morp hed i mages . A reaso nable juro r eas ily c ould

have concl uded that Ramos know inglyposs essed"an image of childporn ograp hy . . . t hat [ he] p roduc ed us ing m ateri als

. . . ship ped o r tra nspor ted i n int ersta te orfore ign

comme rce," name ly, acomp uter manuf actur ed inKore a anda hard drive manu factu red i n Tha iland . 18 U.S. C. § 2252A (a)(5 )(B).

Final ly, R amos argue s tha t the stat ute i s

uncon stitu tiona l as appli ed tohim becau se th e evi dence couldonlyshowthathe c reate d the imag es "a lone in hi s trail er," engag ing i n "pr ivate conduct o n his lapt op," using image s tha t cou ld on ly ha ve be en hi s "pe rsona l fam ily photo s" th at ne ver t ravel ed ac ross the i ntern et, w ithou t any evide nce s ugges ting he in tende d to distr ibute the morph ed image s to anyon e els e. T his a rgume nt fa ils. As w e expla ined in Holst on , "Co ngres s und ersto od th at mu ch ofthe porno graph ic ma teria l inv olvin g min ors t hat f eeds the [nati onal] mark et is loca lly p roduc ed, a nd th is lo cal o r 'home grown ' pro ducti on su pport s dem and i n the nati onal

- 34 -marke t andis e ssent ial t o its exis tence ." Holst on , 343

F.3d at 90 . "[ W]henCong ress regul ates a cla ss of activ ities thatsubs tanti ally affec t int ersta te co mmerc e," the f act t hat p artic ular activ ities with in th at cl ass d o not have a sub stant ial e ffecton i nters tate comme rce i s "'irr eleva nt.'" Id. at 9 0 (qu oting Proye ct v. Unit ed State s , 101 F.3d11, 14 (2 d Cir . 199 6) ( per c uriam )). "The gover nmentneednot demon strat e a n exus to in terst ate

comme rce i n eve ry pr osecu tion. " Holst on , 343 F.3dat 9 1. As § 2252Aclea rly l ies w ithinCong ress' s pow ers u nder the Comme rce C lause , the factthatRamo s "ne ithership ped [ his image s] in terst ate n or in tende d to benef it co mmerc iallyfrom [them ] is of nomome nt." Id .

We co nclud e tha t the jury 's ve rdictconv ictin g Ramos of p osses sion of ch ild p ornog raphyunde r § 2252A (a)(5 )(B) was s uffic ientl y sup porte d by the e viden ce.

- 35 -CONCL USION We ha ve co nside red R amos' s rem ainin g arg ument s and concl ude t hat t hey a re wi thoutmeri t. Forthe foreg oing 1 1

reaso ns, t he ju dgmen t of the d istri ct co urt i s AFF IRMED .

Our decision in United States v. Hotaling precludes 1 1 Ramos's argument that the application of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A and 2256 to morphed pornography violates the First Amendment. United States v. Hotaling , 634 F.3d 725, 728-30 (2d Cir. 2011) (holding that child pornography created by digitally altering images of real children is not protected expressive speech under the First Amendment), cert. denied , 132 S. Ct. 843 (2011); see United States v. Stevens , 130 S. Ct. 1577, 1586 (2010) (noting that child pornography is a category of speech "fully outside the protection of the First Amendment" (citing New York v. Ferber , 458 U.S. 747, 763 (1982))); United States v. Bach , 400 F.3d 622, 632 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding that creation of a "lasting record" of an "identifiable minor child, seemingly engaged in sexually explicit activity," would victimize child and thus was properly considered child pornography). Likewise, we reject Ramos's Eighth Amendment challenge to his sentence. The district court acted well within its discretion in imposing the statutory mandatory minimum of 180 months' imprisonment, a sentence that was well below the Guidelines range of 324-405 months, and that was reasonable under all the circumstances. See United States v. Rivera , 546 F.3d 245, 254-55 (2d Cir. 2008); United States v. MacEwan , 445 F.3d 237, 248-50 (3d Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 163 (2d Cir. 2003) ("[L]engthy prison sentences . . . do not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when based on proper application of the Sentencing Guidelines or statutorily mandated . . . terms.").

- 36 -