## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 1953 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v . P AULK INC AID , D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 3:06- CR-30073-JES-BC G- 1

— Jeanne E . Sc ott, Judge .
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 7, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 6, 2009

Befo re P OSNER, R IPPLE a nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . R IPPLE, Ci r c u i tJ udg e . A fte r a b en c h tria l, P au l K in c aid w as convi cted of one co unt ofpro du ci ng chi l d pornog ra phy, i n v i o l at i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 2251(a), and o ne c o unt o fp o s s e s s i ngc hi l d p o r no g r a ph y, i n v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 2 252A(a) ( 5) ( B). T h e d istr i ct c ourtse ntenced hi m to 36 0 m on th s’ im p ris on m en t. M r. K in c aid n ow ap p ea ls h is co nv i ct i o n. Fo rthe r ea so ns s etf o r thi n the f o l l o wi ng opi ni on, we affi rm the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.2 N o. 08

- 1953

The f ac t s , as r ec ount ed i n thi s s ec t i on, ar e t ake n fro m the 1 stipu lation s sub m itted to the cou rt b y the p arties. I B AC KGR OUND A . Facts I n A ugust 2 006, pol i ce in Lit c h field , I l l i noi s, beg an inve st i g at i ngM r . Ki nc ai d f o rpo ss ibl e po ss es si o n a nd producti on of chil d pornog ra phy. W i th the co oper ati on 1 ofa w om an wh o previ ousl y had be en photo gr aphed by M r. Kincai d, p olice were abl e t o disc ove r the i denti ty of o n e of M r. K in c aid ’s v ict im s. D u rin g a n int er vie w , th is young m an i nfo rm ed l aw enf or cem ent o ffi c ials that, w hen he w as tw el ve yea rs ol d, M r. Kincai d had p ro m i sed “t o g i ve h im m on ey if h e w ou ld d o ‘s om et h in g’ fo r h im [ K i nc aid ]
. ” R. 31 at 3. The yo ung m an ag re ed, and, o n se ve ra l oc c as ion s, M r. K in c aid to ok se x u ally ex p l i c it pictures o fhi m and al so engag ed hi m i n sexualact i vi ty. Based on thi s in ter vi ew , and other i nfo rm ati on obtained fr om co oper ating witne sse s, the auth or i ti es secur ed a warr ant t o searc h M r. Kincai d’s re si dence, w hi ch w as executed o n Se ptem ber6, 20 06. W hen prese nted w i th the warra nt, M r. Kincai d ag re ed to sp eak wi ththe o ffi ce r s an d a cc o m pan i ed th em to the Lit chfi el d M unici pal Center, wh er e M r. Kincai d w as i nt e r v i e we d. Dur i ngthe i nt er view , M r . Ki nc ai d e xpl aine d “ th athe w as a h om ose xual and that m em ber s o fthe com m unity, especi al l y m i norchi l dren, would often a pp roac h h i m toN o. 08

- 1953 3 disc uss s exual m att er s. ” Id. at 9
. M r. Kincai d al so i nfo rm ed the offi cer s that, “during the se conve rs ati ons, m i norm al es w oul d occas i onal l y as k him f oro ra lse x and .

. . he woul d com plywith those r equests
. ” Id. M r . Ki nc ai d i nf o r m ed th e i nt er vi ewi ngo ffi ce r s th at“ he had take n and prese rv ed pic ture s o f m i norm al es naked and w hi l e e ngage d i n sex acts
. ” Id. M r. Kincaid ag re ed to acco m pany offi cer s t o hi s r esi dence to l oca te these p ict u re s. M r. K in c aid ex p lain ed th at h e h ad cr ea te d ch ild pornog ra phy and e ngage d in sexual conta c t w i th m in or s ov er a five -d ec ad e p er iod . M r. K in c aid sp ec ifica lly admi tt ed: ( 1) t o mai nt aini nga l o ng -t er m s ex ua lr el at i o nshi p w i th o ne m i norm al e that be ga n w hen the m i nor w as f ourt een, ( 2) to enga gi ng in or alse x w i th ano ther m i no rmal e o n a ppr o xi m at ely t eno cc as i o ns a nd ( 3) t o pa y i nga no th ermin o rmal e fi ve d oll ar s i n e xc h an ge for s h ow in g M r. K in c a i d h i s g en ita ls. M r. K in c aid furtheradm i tte d to havi ng “a pro bl em with t eenag e add i cti on

— an o bsessive at tr acti on t o boy s 1 3- 18. ” Id. at 10 (i nt erna l qu otation m arks om itted ). T h e s ea r c h of M r. K in c aid ’s h om e, co n d u c te d w ith h is coo perat i on, “r esul ted i n the re c ov ery o fhund re ds of i m age s of chi l d p or n ogr aphy. ” Id. at11

- 12. A l lo fthes e i m age s were tak en usi ng Pol ar oi d cam er a e quipm ent. Fol l ow-up res ear ch r eve al ed that the Po l ar oi d cam era, w hi ch M r. K in c aid had used f orthe l astei ght y ear s, was m an u fac tu re d i n China. Fur ther m or e, atl eas t s om e o f th e film th at M r. K in c aid u se d to p h o t o gr ap h h is vic tim s w as m an u fac tu re d in t h e N et h er lan d s.4 N o. 08

- 1953

18 U .S. C
. § 22 51 (a) p ro v id es: 2 A ny p erso n w ho e m p loy s, uses, pe rsu ad es, ind u ces, entices, or coer ces an y m ino r to eng ag e in, or w ho ha s a m ino r assist any othe r per s on t o e nga ge i n, o r w ho t ra ns por t s any m ino r in o r affectin g i n t erstate or fore ign com m erce , or in any Te rr i t or y orPos s es s i on ofthe Uni t ed Sta t es , with the inten t that su ch m ino r en g ag e in, any sexu ally exp licit c onduc t f or the purpo s e of pro duci ng any vi s ual depi c t i on ofs uc h c on duc to r f or t he pu r po s e o ft r a ns m i t t i nga l i ve visual dep ic ti on of such c o n d uct, s hall be pu nis hed as pro vi ded unde r s ubs ec t i on ( e) , i fs uch p erso n kn ows or ha s r e a s ont o kn ow tha ts uc h vi s ua l de pi ct ionwi l l be t ra ns por t ed o r t ra ns m i t t ed us i ng a ny m eans or f ac i l i t y of inter state o r foreig n co m m erce or in or a ffe c ting intersta te or f or ei gn c om m er c e or m aile d, i fthatvi s ual depi c t i on was pr od uc e d o r t r a ns m i t t e d u s i ngm ate r i a l s tha th a ve been m ail ed, shi pp ed , o r t ransporte d in or affect ing i nter
s t a t e o r f or e i gnc om m erc e by a ny m e a ns, i nc l udi ngby com p u te r, or i fs uch visual dep ic ti on has ac tuall y been t ra ns por ted or t ra ns m i t t ed us i ng a ny m ea ns or f ac i l i t y of inter state o r foreig n co m m erc e o r in o r affecting intersta te orf or e i gnc omm e r c e o r m a i l e d. 18 U .S. C
. § 22 52 A (a) p ro v id es in relev an t pa rt: 3 (co n tin u ed ...) B. Dist r i ctCourtPro ceedi ngs O n O c to b er 4, 20 06 , a gra n d j u ry ch ar ge d M r. K i n c aid ina tw o-c ou n t in d ict m en t w ith th e p ro d u c tio n of ch ild p ornogr aphy i n vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S. C. § 2 251( a) 2 and posses si on o fchi l d pornog ra p h y i n vi ol ati on of18 U
. S. C. § 2 252 A (a)( 5) ( B). The i nd i ctm ent c harg ed 3N o. 08

- 1953 5

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 ( a) Any pe rs on who

— . . .

( 5) ei ther

— . . . (B) kn ow ing ly p oss e sses, or k no w ing ly a ccesses w ith i n t e n tt o v i e w , a n y b o o k , ma g a z i n e , p e r i o d i c a l , fi l m, videotape, com pu terdisk, or any otherm ater ial that contai ns an i m age ofchi ld p o rn o g rap hy that has been m ai l ed, or s hi pped ort ra ns por t ed us i ng a ny m eans or f ac i l i t y ofi nt er s t at e or f or ei gn c om m er c e or i n o r affecting intersta te or for eig n com m erce b y an y m ean s, i nc l udi ng by c om put er, or thatwas pr oduc ed us i ng m ater ials tha t ha v e b e e n m a i led , or ship p ed or tra nspo r t e d i n ora ffe c t i ng i nt e r s t a t e o r f or e i gnc omm e r c e by a n y m ea n s, in cl u d in g b y co m p u te r; . . . sh a ll b e p u n ish ed as p ro v id ed in su b se ct io n (b ). that M r. K i ncai d pr oduced the por nogr aphic photog ra phs: knowing orhaving r ea so n to kno w thatsuch vi sual depi ct i o ns woul d b e tran spo r te d i n int er st at e an d for eig n co m m er c e a n d m aile d , andsa i d vi sualdepic

ti ons havi ng been produced usi ng m ate ri al s that had been m ai l ed, shi pp ed, an d tra nsport ed i n i nter sta te and fo re i gn co m m er ce b y a ny m eans, i ncl ud i ng by c om p u te r, andsa id vis u al d ep ict ion s h av in g a c tu ally been tr anspor ted i n i nter sta te and fo re i gn co m m er ce a nd ma i l e d. R. 11 ( em phasi s a dd ed). Count Tw o a l l ege d that M r. Kincai d posses sed por nogr aphic m ate ri al s,
w hi ch had been m ai l ed an d shi pp ed and tr anspor ted i n i nter sta te and fo re i gn c om m er ce, i ncl ud i ng by c om p u te r, and t h at w er e p ro d u c ed u sin g m at er ials6 N o. 08

- 1953 th at h ad be en m aile d an d sh ip p ed an d tra n s p or te d in i n t e r s t a t e a n d f o r e i g n c o mme r c e , i n c l u d i n gb y c o mp ut er. Id. ( em p ha sis add ed ). A fterhi s ar ra i gnm ent, M r. Kincai d fi l ed sev er alpre tr i al m o ti o ns i nc l udi ng a m o ti o n to di smi ss th e i ndi ct m en t for f ai l ure to est abl i sh “the j uri sdic ti onal el em ent, ” i
. e., a sufficient connect i on t o i nter sta te com m er ce t o confer fed er al jur isd ict ion u n d er th e C om m er c e C lau se . See R. 24 a t1
. Mr
. Ki nc a i d’ s mo t i o n c l a i med tha tthe o nly a pparent b a s i s f o r fe de r a l j ur i s di c t i o n wa s “ the f a c t tha t a si ngl e Po l ar oi d cam er a r eco ver ed fro m t h e Defendant, and al l ege d to have been em plo yed b y the Defendant to cre ate vi sualdepic ti ons f orhi s o w n ar ousal, was produced i n China. ” R. 24 a t 4. M r. Kincai d m ai ntai ned th atf o rthi s ca m er a “t o c o ns titute the s o l e cr ux fo rthe federa l i zati on o fthe cri m es charg ed cal l [ ed] i nto questi on funda m en ta lpr i nc i pl es o fF ede r ali sm an d Co m i ty, a nd const i tut[ ed] such an a tte nuated nexus w i th i nter sta te co m m er ce tha t woul d l i k ely l ea ve . . . [ th e] F o undi ng Fathers i l latea se, to sa y the l eas t. ” Id. at5. S ubs eque nt l y, M r . Ki nc ai d a nd the Go ve r nm en t enter ed ple a negoti ati ons. A t a hear i ng o n J une 27, 20 07, M r . Ki nc ai d wai ve d h is r i g htt o a j ur y t r i al, a nd the parti es agr eed to a bench tr i alo n the sti pu l ate d fa cts det ail ed a bo ve . M r . Ki nc ai d’ s W ai ve ro fJ ur y Tr i ala nd St i pu l ati ons f orBench Tria l i ncl ud ed the f ol l owing sta tem ent: 2. As s ta te d i n o p en c ou r t, i t i s th e i nt en t o fthe par ties tha t th e defen dan t des i r es t o wai ve hi s r i g htN o. 08

- 1953 7 to a t r i alb y j ur y a nd pr o ce ed to a b en ch tri alo n only tw o is s u es . Th e firs t is su e, re lev an t t o C ou n t O n e, is whethe rthe c hi l d po r no g r aph y pr o duce d b y the defe nd ant was pro du ced usin g m ate ri althathad been m ai l ed, shi pp ed, o r tr anspor ted i n i nter sta te or f o r e i g n c o mm e r c e b y a nyme a ns . T he s e c o nd i ssue, re l evantto C ount Tw o, is w hetherthe chi l d pornog ra phy knowingl y pos ses sed bythe defe nd ant was produced usi ng m ate ri al s that had be en m ai l ed, o r s h i pp e d o rt r a n s p o r t e d i n i n t e r s t a t e o rf o r e i g n c o mm er ce b y a ny m eans. R. 31 a t 1- 2 (em p ha si s adde d)

. Dur i ngthe he ar i ng, the cour t con firm ed that M r. Kincai d w as “r ese rv i ng as se t f or th i n the sti pu l ati on o nl y t w o i ssues . ” Tr anscr i pt of J une 27, 2007 H ear i ng at 18. The cour t furtherco nfi rm ed that M r. Kincai d u n d ersto od the i m porto fthe sti pu l ati o ns a nd tha t he ha d a g r ee d t o the s ti pul at i o ns kn ow in gly an d vo lu n ta rily. Se ei d. at18

- 20. Befo re the cl ose o fthe hear i ng, M r. Kincai d’s counsel as k ed to wi th dr aw a l lpe ndi ngmo ti o ns i nc l udi ngthe m ot ion to d ism iss on ju r i s d i c tio n al g ro u n d s. Id. at25
. The di st r i ctc o ur t th ene ng ag ed i n the f o l l o wi ngc o l l o quy wi th M r . Ki nc a i d: THE COU RT: All r i g ht

. M r . Ki nc ai d , d o y o u un der st an d tha t th e m o tio ns y o ur att or neys fi l ed previ ousl y a re bei ng withdrawn, so theywon’t be rul e d u po n b e c a use y ou’ ve re ached th i s st i pul at i o n? M R
. K I N C A I D : Y es, Y ou r H onor.8 N o. 08

- 1953 TH E C OU RT: You und er sta nd that ? M R
. K I N C A I D : Y es, Y ou r H onor. THE COURT: And i s th ata g r ee ab l e wi thy o u? M R
. K I N C A I D : Y es, Y ou r H onor. THE COU RT: O kay. A ll p en d in g m o t io n s are

w ith d ra w n . . . . Id. Bas ed on the pa r ti es ’ s ti pul at i o ns , the c o ur t f o und M r . Ki nc ai d g ui l tyo n b o thc o unt s o fthe i nd ictm en t an d su bs eque nt l y s en te nc ed hi m t o 3 60 months ’ i m pr i so nmen t
. Mr
. Ki nc a i d t i mel y a pp e a l e d.

II A N A L Y S IS O n ap p ea l, M r. K in c aid ch alle n ge s t w o a sp ec t s of h is convi cti on. Fi rs t, he r ai ses a const i tuti onalchal l enge to his con vi ct i o ns , na m ely tha t hi s cr i m es b ea ra n ins uffi ci ent ne xus to i nter sta te c om m er ce t o supp or t federa l j uri sdi ct i o n un derthe Co m m er ce Cl au se . S ec o nd, he m ai ntai ns thatthe i nd i ctm ent di d not a pp ri se hi m adeq u at ely of th e a lleg at ion s a ga in st h im
.
A . I nter st at e Comm er ce Chal l enge Befo re we add re ss the m er i ts ofM r. Kincai d’s Com m er ce Cl au se c ha l l en g e, we fi r stm us t co ns i derthe Go ve r nm ent’ s a r g ume nttha tthi s c ha l l e ng e h a s b e e n wa i v e d.N o. 08

- 1953 9 M r. Kincai d m ai ntai ns, however , that the co nsti tuti onal issue i s “j uri sdic ti onal, ” a nd , ther ef or e, notsubj ect to w ai ver . W e di sag re e.

1. At o ne t i m e, th er e was s uppo r t i n o urc as e l aw f o rthe propos i ti on that a chal l enge to a s tatute o n Com m er ce Clause gr ounds, such as the one m ade byM r. Kincai d here , sh ou ld be ch aract erized as a cha ll en ge t o the cou rt’s j ur i sdi ct i o n. In U nite d States v. Stil lwell, 9 0 0 F
. 2 d 1 1 0 4 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 0) , the de fen dan ts c ha l l en g ed th eirc o nv i ct i o ns und er t h e fe deralar son sta tute, 18 U
. S. C. § 8 44( i ) , o n se ve r alg r o unds , i nc l udin gtha t: ( 1) “ th ei rc o nv i ct i o ns shoul d be r eve rsed b ec ause [ a] pri vate r esi dence di d not sa ti sfy the a r so n s ta tu te ’ s r equi r ementtha t th e bui l di ng su bj ec t to the a r so n b e ‘ us ed in [an ]
. . . a ct i vi tya ffec ting in te rs ta te
. . . co m m er c e,’ ” a n d (2) “if C on gr es s d id i ntend the federa lar son sta tute to re ach a pri vate re si dence s u ch as St i l l w el l ’ s, then Congre ss exceeded i ts pow erunder the co m m er ce c l ause. ” Id. a t 11 06
. The Gover nm ent c l ai m ed that the s eco nd ar gum ent had been w ai ved f orf ai l ure to ra i se the i ssue i n the dist ri ct cour t. W e di sag re ed and explained accor dingl y: W hi l e we a g r ee tha t defen dan ts di d no t r ai se thi s i ss ue at th e d ist ric t c ou rtlev el, d efe n d an t s m ay rais e t h is i ss ue o n a ppea lb ec au se i t i s j urisd i ct i o na l

. I fthe appli cati on o f § 844( i ) to defe nd ants exceeds Congre ss’ p ow e r u nd er the com m erce clau se, th e d istri ct cou rt coul d not e xerci se j uri sdic ti on o verthe subj ect- m att er con ta in ed i n Count One .
. . . Lack ofsubj ect- m att er10 N o. 08

- 1953 j uri sdic ti on, w hether thro ugh sta tutory inter preta
t i o n o rc o ns t i t ut i o na lp r e s c r i pt i o n, i s n e v e rwa i v e d. Id. at11 10 n .2. Ho we v e r, we r e v i s i t e d Stil lwell a few ye ar s la te r in U nite d States v. M arti n , 147F.3d 52 9 (7 th C ir. 19 98 ). In M arti n , wh i c h i nv o l v e d a s i mi l a ri nt e r s t a t e c o mm er ce questi on, we “acknow l edge[ d] th at the l anguage i n f oo tnot e 2 of Stil lwell i s m i sta ken. ” Id. a t5 3 2
. We e xp l a i ne d: I n Stil lwell, th e d efe n d an ts h ad st ip u lat ed to ce rt ain f acts r ega rdi ng the house ’ s connecti ons to i nter sta te com m er ce, but ar gued on a pp ealthatthe connecti o ns t o whi chthe y ha d s ti pul at ed di d no t sa ti sfy the i nt er st at e co m m er ce el ement o f th e st atut e. The de fen dan ts i n Stil lwell , then, e ss en ti al l y a r g ue d tha t th e i ndi ct m en t f ai l ed to s ta te a n o ffen se . Thi s ar g um en t was no t pr es en te d t o the di st r i ctc o ur t butthe de fen d a n t s c l a i me d th a ti tmi gh tb e r a i s e d f o rth e fi r s tt i me on a pp eal

. Today we expl ai n by w ay ofcl ar i fi cati on th at rev iew by th is c ou rtfor pla in er ro r w as ap p ro p riate in that cas e despi te the defendants’ f ai l ure to ra ise th e a rg u m en t o n ap p ea l. SeeF ed. R. Cr i m . P. 52 (b ); se e also U nite d S tates v. Q uintanil la , 2 F. 3d 1469 , 14 76 -77(7t h C i r. 19 93 ). A ch al l e nget o thei ndi ct m e nt b as e d on theade q uacy of thei nt e rs t at ec om m erc es t ipul at io n had n o re l at i on t o s ubj e ctm at t e rj ur i s di ct i on

— t he pow ert o adjudicate

— but i n stead w ent o nly to a n a lleged f ai l ureof proof

. Se eBe l l v. Hood, 327 U
. S. 6 78, 680 ( 1946 ); see also Turn er/O z a nn e v. Hym a n/P o w er, 1 11 F. 3d 1312 , 1 3 1 6

- 1 7(7t h Ci r . 1 9 9 7 ) ( “ J ur i s di c t i o n un de rthe fe der alquesti on s tatute i s no t defeat ed b y the poss ibi l i tyN o. 08

- 1953 11 th atthe a ve r m en ts , upo n c l o se e xa m i na ti o n, might be d eterm ined not to stat e a cau se of action.”)

. Id. ( em phasi s a dd ed; para l l elci tat i ons om i tte d). Recent l y, i n U nited Sta tes v. La cey, N o. 08

- 2515 , 20 09 W L 16353 82 ( 7th Ci r . J une 1 2, 2 00 9) , we affi r m ed th e vi ta l i tyo fo ur dec i si o n in M arti n : [ C] o nt r ary t o La ce y ’ s co nt en ti o n, hi s attack o n the ev id en c e s u p p or tin g t h e jur isd ict ion al e lem en t o f h is § 2 252A(a) ( 5) ( B) c onvi cti on i s no t t h at type ofj uri sd ict ion al c h al len ge . A “jur isd ict ion al e lem en t” is si m plyan el em ent ofa federa lcr i m e. I t i s j uri sdic ti onal “on ly in th e sh ortha nd sen se th at w ithou t th a t [intersta te com m er ce] nexus, ther e ca n be no federa l c rim e. . . . It is n otj u ris d ict i o n al in th e s en se th at it a f f ec ts a cou rt ’s su bj ec t m at te r j u ris d ict ion, i.e., a cour t’ s co nsti tu tio n al or s tat utor y power to ad j u d ica te a c as e, h er e a u th or ize d b y 18 U .S.C
. § 3 23 1.” U nite d State s v. M arti n , 147 F. 3d 529, 532 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) (i nt erna l citation om itted ). La cey, 20 09 W L 16 35 38 2, at *3. See gen erally Wisco nsin V a lley Im pro vem ent Co
. v. U nited Sta tes , N o. 08-4300, sl ip op
. at 4-5 ( 7th Ci r . J une 2 2, 2 00 9) ( di sc us si ng th e m i su se o fthe term “j urisd ictional” to des cribe any m an d atory rule). F o l l o wi ng o ur dec i si ons i n M arti n a nd La cey, ther ef or e, M r . Ki nc ai d’ s cl ai m tha t hi s cr i m e be ar s ani ns uffi ci en t nexus to i nter sta te com m er ce i s no t a “j uri sdic ti onal ” o ne. Because i t i s no t “j urisd i cti onal ” in nature , i t m ay be w aiv ed

.12 N o. 08

- 1953 2. H avi ng d eterm i ned that the i ssue ofthe i nter sta te nexus i s n ot j uri sdic ti onal, we m ust turn to the questi on whethe rM r . Ki ncaid , i n f ac t, wai ve d thi s ar g um en t bef or e the di str i ct c ourt
. The Suprem e Cour t has exp l ai ned, and w e have e choed on num er ous o ccasi ons, that“[ w ] ai veri s di ffer ent fro m f o r fei tu r e. W he r ea s forf ei tu r e i s th e f ai l ur e to make the ti m el y as se rt i on o fa ri ght, waive r i s the ‘ i ntenti onal re lin q u ish m en t o r ab an d on m en t o f a kn ow n righ t.’ ” U ni t e d S t a tes v. O l ano , 5 07U. S
. 7 25 , 7 33 ( 19 93 ) ( quo ting Jo hn son v. Z erbst, 304 U .S. 45 8, 46 4 (1 93 8)); a cco rd U n i t ed Sta tes v . Co o per, 2 4 3 F
. 3 d 4 1 1 , 4 1 5 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 )
. T h u s , we have hel d that a defendant waive d his r i ght t o chal l enge a se nt en cingc al cul at i o n b y i ni ti al l y o bj ec ting t o the c a lcu lat ion, bu t la te r w ith d ra w in g t h e o bj ec tio n . See U nited S ta tes v . Sensm eier, 361 F. 3d 982, 986 (7th Cir. 2004). S i m i l ar l y, i n C o o per, we hel d that a defendant had w ai ved hi s rightto chal l enge the a dm i ssibi l i ty ofthe evi dence w h en defense counselwithdrew a m oti on in l i m i ne, sta ted he did nothave any obj ecti on t o th e ad m i ssi on o f th e ev i den ce a nd r efer r ed to the e vi d en ce dur i ngthe c ou rs e o f tria l. See C o o per, 24 3 F
. 3d at 416. The Fi fth Ci rcui t has held, under ci rcum sta nces str i ki ngl y s i m i l arto tho se prese nted her e, thata w ith d raw al o fa motion chal l en g i ngthe s uffi ci en cyo fa n indi ct m en t co ns ti tu te s a wai ve r . In U nite d States v. D avis , 306 F. A p p ’x 102 ( 5th Ci r. 20 09) , a defe nd ant co nvi cted o fattem pted producti on o fchi l d pornog ra phy und er 18 U
. S. C. § 2 251( a) appe al ed hi s co nvictio n. W hi l e i n the di st r i ctc o ur t, theN o. 08

- 1953 13 defe nd ant had fi l ed a m oti on t o dism i ss the ind i ctm ent; speci fi cal l y, the m oti on chal l enged the co urt’ s “ l ack of j ur i sdi ct i o n be ca us e 18 U. S
. C. § 2 25 1( a) i s unc o ns ti tu
ti onalunder the Com m er ce Cl ause. ” Id. a t 1 04. On the fi r s tda y o ft r i a l, de fe ns e c o un s e la dv i s e d the di str i ct cour t that the parti es had e nter ed a sti pu l ation regar d in g the i nter sta te com m er ce a spect ofthe offense and that the defendant w as w i thdrawing hi s m oti on t o dism i ss. H owever, o n appeal, the defe nd ant a tte m pted to c ha l l en g e th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s den i alo fthe m otion. The Fi fth Ci rcui t hel d that the i ssue had been wai ved: “Because Davi s r ai sed thi s i ssue i n the dist ri ct c ourtand subse

q u en tly w ith d re w th e m ot ion rais in g t h e is su e, D av is w ai ved thi s i ssue, and i t i s unre vi ew abl e. ” Id. I n the prese n t case, the ar gum ent forwaive r i s e ven m or e co m pel l i ng. In the “W ai verof J ury Tri aland St i pu l ati o ns f o rBe nc h Tr i al ” th atM r . Ki nc aid fi l ed wi ththe d ist ric t c ou rt, he cle ar ly in d ica te d th at th er e w er e o n ly tw o i ssues l eft forthe cour t’ s co nsi derat i on

— w hether the m eans ofpro du ci ng the chi l d p or n ogr aphy i n both Count On e a nd C ou n t Tw o ofthe i nd i ctm ent had t r a v e l e d i n i n t e r s t a t e c o mme r c e . F u r th e r mo r e , d u r i n gt he J une 27, 20 08 hear i ng, bo th M r. Kincai d and his counsel confi rm ed to the cour t th at these were the onl y i ssues for th e cou rt’s consid eration. Fi na ll y, M r. K in caid ’s counselexp li ci tl y withd re w hi s co nsti tuti onalchal l enge to the ind i ctm ent, and M r. K i ncai d stat ed i n cour t that he both agreed w ith, an d un d erstood the ram ifications of, co unsel’ s wi th dr awalo fthe mot i o n. Al lo fthe se a ct i o ns es ta b lish th at M r. K in c a i d w as aw ar e t h at h e c ou ld ch all e n g e th e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o fth e i n d i c t me n to n C o m-14 N o. 08

- 1953

M r . K i n c a i d r e sp o n d s t h a t, r e g a r d l e ss o f h i s o r h i s c o u n s e l ’s 4 actio ns b efore th e cou rt, the d istrict co u rt ad d ressed the co nstit ut i ona l i s s ue, an d, the re f or e, thi s c our tal s o m ay re s ol ve the is sue. A lthoug h the dist ri ct court did determ ine thatthe f actual r e q ui s i t e s for vi ol a t i on s o fthe s t a t ut e s h a d b e e n s ho wn b y the st ipulate d f act s, now here in it s opinion did the dis tr ic t c ourt rai se , add re ss or res olve the cons ti tuti onal c om plaintthat M r. K in ca id n o w lo d g es . m er ce Cl au se g r o unds a nd tha t he ma d e a co ns ci o us d eci si on notto pre ss that ar gum ent. Because M r. Kinc aid i ntenti onal l y r el i nquished thi s know n ri ght, he ha s wai ve d hi s r i g htt o c ha l l en g e th e con st i tu ti o na l i tyo fthe i nd i ctm ent in thi s co urt. 4

B . S uf f i c i e nc yo ft he I ndi c t me nt M r. Kincai d next subm i ts that the ind i ctm ent was defe cti ve. M r. K i ncai d’s ar gum ent f ocuse s o n the f act that, wi thr es pec t to the i nt er st at e co m m er ce ele m en t o fthe o ffen se , the s ta tu tes a r e wor ded i n the di sj unc ti ve , b ut the counts of the i nd i ctm ent a re worded i n the conj uncti ve. Forexam ple , an ind i vidual vi ol ate s 1 8 U.S
. C. § 2 251( a) if th e in d ivid u al h as p ro d u c ed ch ild p or n o g r ap h y a n d if one of th e fol low ing interstat e c om m erce con ne ctions are prove n: ( 1) “such perso n knows

. . . that su c h visual depi ct i o n wi l lb e tr an spor ted o rt r an smi tt ed us i nga ny m eans orf aci l i ty ofint er sta te orfor ei gn co m m er ce . . . o r m ai l ed,” ( 2) the “vi sualdepic ti on was pro du ced ortr ansm i tte d usi ng m ate ri al s that hav e be en m ai l ed, shi pp ed, o r t r a n s p o r t e d i n o ra ffe c t i n gi n t e r s t a t e o rf o r e i g n c o m-N o. 08

- 1953 15

Si m i l ar l y, the l ang uage ofCountTwo i s s etf or th i n the 5 conjun c tiv e, bu t the statu te tha t is the b asis f or the in d ictm en t, 18 U.S. C. § 2252A(a) ( 5) ( B), i s se t forth i n the disj uncti ve. m er ce b y a ny m eans, i ncl ud i ng byco m pu ter, ” or(3) “s uch vi sualdepic ti on has actual l y b een t ra nsport ed ortr an sm i tte d usi ng anym eans orf acility o fi nter sta te or f or ei gn co m m er ce o r i n oraffecti n g i nter sta te orf or ei gn com m er c e o r m ai l ed. ” 1 8 U.S
. C. § 2 251( a)
. By co ntra st, C o u n tO n e o fth e i n d i c t me n tc h a r g e d th e i n t e r s t a t e c o mm er ce e l em ents i n the conj uncti ve: O n or a b ou t Se p te m b er 20 04 , . . .

P A U L K IN C A ID k n o win g l y e mp l o y e d , u s e d , p e r s u a d e d , i n d u c e d, enti ced and coe rce d a per son und er the age ofei ghtee n y ea r s, t o e ng ag e i n se xua l l yexpl i ci t co nduc t .
. . f o rthe pur po se o fpr o ducingv i su alde pi ct i o ns o fs uchc o ndu ct, kno w i ng o r havi ng reas on t o know that s uch vi sualdepic ti ons w oul d be t ra nsport ed i n i nter sta te an d fore ign co m m er c e a n d m aile d , and sai d vi sual depicti ons havi ng be en pro du ced usi ng m ate ri al s that ha d been m ail ed , ship p ed , and trans p orted i n inte rst at e an d f o r ei g n c o m m erce bya ny mean s, i nc l udi ng b y c om p u te r, ands ai d v i su alde pi ct i o ns h av i nga ctua l l y b e e n t r a ns p o r t e d i n i n t e r s t a t e a n d f o r e i g n c o mmer c e a nd ma i l e d. A l li n vi ol atio n o f ti tl e 1 8 Un i ted S tat es Code, Section 2251(a). R. 11 at1 ( emphas i s a dded)

. A cc o r di ngto M r . K i nc ai d, the 5 phrasi ng o fthe i nd i ctm ent lull ed hi m i nto belie vi ng tha t16 N o. 08

- 1953 the Gove rnm ent c oul d not c onvicthi m o fthe charg ed o f f e n s e u n l e s s i tp r o v e d a l lth r e e o fth e i n t e r s t a t e c o mm er ce e l em ents. H e cl ai m s th at , “ [ b] ecause o fthes e fl aws i n the i ndi ct m en t, [ he ] was n ot p ut on no ti ce o fthe c rim es ch ar ge d an d w as p rej u d ice d in p re p ar in g h is defe nse. ” Ap pel l ant’ s Br. 21
. M r. Ki nc a i d’ s a r g ume nti s wi tho utme r i t
. “ Th e g e ne r al rul e i s that when a j ury re turns a guil ty ver dic t on an i ndi ct m en t ch ar g i ng se ve r al ac ts i n th e co nj unc ti ve , . . . the ve rd i ct s tands i fthe evi dence i s s uffi ci ent with re spect to any one of the a c ts ch ar ged. ” U nited Sta tes v. Turn er, 396 U
. S. 39 8, 42 0 ( 1970 )
. W e co nsi ste n tly have appli ed Turn eri n this c irc uitand have rej ecte d cl ai m s o fer ro r ba se d on th e us e o fthe c o nj unc ti ve i n c ha r g i ngdo cum en ts
. Se e U ni t e d St at e s v. Cox , 5 36 F.3d 723, 72 6-27 (7th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) ( “ We h a v e h e l d th a t‘ wh e r e a s t a t u t e d e fi n e s t wo or m or e w ay s in w h ich an offe n se m ay be c o m m i t te d , all m ay be a l l ege d i n the conj uncti ve i n one count. ’ ” ( i nter nal c ita tio n s o m itt ed )), cert. denied , 129 S. Ct
. 770 (2008); U nited Sta te s v. M o o re, 363 F.3d 631 , 640 (7th C ir. 2004), v a c a t e d o n o t he rg r o u n d s s u b n o m. Young & Jac ks on v. U nited Sta tes , 543 U .S. 11 00 (20 05 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Le D onn e, 21 F.3d 14 18 , 14 2 7 ( 7 t h C ir. 19 94 ). Th e s am e is tru e in ot h er circ u its
. Se eCox , 536 F.3d at 727( coll ectin g cases ). M r. K incaid ackn ow ledge s t h e hold ings of Turn era nd Cox , bu t argu es th at “ n e it h er case p reclud es th e cou rt fro m c on du cti ng an anal ysi s o fwh ethero r not a defe nd ant is actual l y pr ej ud i ced by a va ri ance b etween th e in d ict m en t a n d th e s ta tu te .” R ep ly B r. 3. M r. K in c aid cl ai m s that he w as “actual l y pr eju d ice d” by the l anguageN o. 08

- 1953 17

T hu s, this is not a ca se o f “co nstru ctiv e am en d m en t”

— w here 6 “the e vi denc e pre s en t ed a tt ri al

. . . rai s es the pos s ibi l i t y thatthe defe nd ant was convict ed of an offen se otherthan that c harged in the i nd ic tm en t. ” H unte r v. St at e of New M exi co , 916 F. 2d 5 9 5 , 59 9 (10 th C ir . 19 9 0 ) (in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itt ed ). ofthe i nd i ctm ent b ecause he pr epare d his defense base d o n the b e l i e f tha t “ the Go v e r nme nt ha d t o pr o v e that th e depi ct i o ns the m sel ves tr av el ed i n int er st at e an d f or ei gn co m m er ce. ” Id. The re cord bel i es thi s cl ai m . I t i s i m port ant t o note th atM r . Ki nc ai d’ s o nl y c o m pl aintwi ththe i ndi ct m en t i s th at i t di ffer s fro m the sta tutory l anguage i n the use o f th e c onj u n c tiv e; th e s ta tu te of co n vic tio n is co r re c tly i denti fi ed i n the i nd i ctm ent, the el em ents of the st atute ar e co r r ec tly s etf o r thi n the i ndi ct m en t, a nd the sti pu l ate d fa cts supp or t the el em ents of t h e indi cted offenses . Furtherm or e, the parti es’ sti pu l ati ons re veal

6 that M r. Kincai d w as aw ar e th at the Gover nm ent was at te m ptingt o pr o ve th e i nt er st at e co m m er ce e l ement bye st ab l i sh i ngtha t th e m at er i al s us ed to pr o d uce th e chi l d pornog rap h y had t ra vel ed i n i nter sta te com m er ce. I nd eed, the questi ons re ser ved f orthe cour t’ s r eso lu tio n ar e f o cus ed o n whe th erthe mate r i al s us ed i n pr o ducing the pornogr aphy have th e requi si te nexus to i nter sta te c om m er c e. SeeR .31 at1-2 . A d d it i o n a l ly, M r. K in c aid state d exp li citly in his sub m issi on to th e d istri ct cou rt that he was “ not sti pu l at[ i ng] ” that ei ther“t h e v i sual depi ct i o ns c r eated b y hi m ” o r“ th e po r no g r aph y posse sse d by hi m w[er e] p ro d u c ed usi ng m ate ri al s that had been m ai l ed, o r shi pp ed ortr anspor ted i n i ntersta te18 N o. 08

- 1953

orf or ei gn co m m er ce. ” Id. at15 -16 (em p h as is ino rig in al). In su m , the r ec o r d r ev ea l s th atM r . Ki nc ai d kne w tha t th e Gover nm ent was at tem pti ng to sa tisfythe i nter sta te com m er ce ne xus by est abl i shi ng tha t the m ater ials used to produce the p or n ogr aphy, as o pp ose d to the pornogra phy i tse l f, had tr avel ed i n i nter sta te com m er ce. M or eo ve r, M r . Ki nc ai d’ s ac ti o ns i n c o nt es tingthi s i ss ue r ev ea ltha t h e unde r st o o d tha t, i fthe Go ve r nm en t sat i sfi ed thi s bur den, i t had p ro ven it s ca se. Consequentl y, we do no t be l i ev e th atthe wor di ngo fthe i nd i ct m en t depri ved M r. Kincai d ofthe opportunity t o pr ep ar e a n adequate defense.
Conclusi on Forthe reaso ns se t for th abo ve, we affi rm the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
. A FFI RMED

7- 6- 09