FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 13, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 80 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-0 02 75 -ODE-ECS-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, vers us PRESTON DANIEL COOPER, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 13 , 20 11 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Pres to n Dan ie l Co op er ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on form ai li ng ch il d p orno gr ap hy

in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 2A( a)(1 ). He co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt im pr op erl y adm it te d e vi de nc e o f hi s p rio r co nv ic ti on s fo r ch il d m ol es ta ti on an d th atth e ev id en ce attri al was n otsu ffi ci en t t o s up po rt h is co nv ic ti on . I. Afte r se rv in g o uta se nt en ce fo r th ree c ou nt s o f ch il d m ol es ta ti on , Coo pe r was rel eas edfro m

pri so n i n S ep te m

be r 20 08 an d wen t t o l iv e ata ha lfwa y ho us e in Atl an ta , Geor gi a. Whi le th ere, Co op er u se d t he ha lfwa y ho us e’s co m

pu te r to lo ok fo r im ag es us in g s pe ci fic search term s s uc h a s “ na ke d young bo y s.” He p rin te d 2 8 im ag es of c hi ld renth athe ha d fo un d, wh ic h i nc lu de d m al e an d fe m al e ch il dr enof
va rio us ag es . In M arch20 09 Co op er m ai le d a n Eas te r car d c on ta in in g t ho se im ag es to hi s fo rm er ce ll m at e who was s ti ll servi ng ti m e in pri so n. To co nc eal hi s id en ti ty, Co op er u se d afal se na m e an d re tu rnad dr es s: “ Si m on Bare it , 69 96 Bea ve r Lan e, Atl an ta , GA 31 00 7.” A correct io ns off

ic er i nt erce pt edth e car d a ndno ti fie d fe de ral au th or it ie s o f wha t s he ha d fo un d. Aft er o bt ai ni ng a se arch warran t, fe de ral ag en ts sea rch edth e ha lfwa y ho us e an d s ei zeda co m

pu te r on whi chth ey

fou ndfil es co nt ai ni ng 27 of th e 2 8 i m ag es th atha d b een m ai le d t o C oo pe r’s fo rm er ce ll m at e. The c om pu te r ha d b een acce ss ib le to all of t he ha lfwa y ho us e res id en ts , whi ch in cl ud edot he r se x 2of

fen de rs , bu t the im ag e fi le s wer e fo un d o n C oo pe r’s pa ss wor d p ro te ct edpo rti on of th e co m pu te r’s ha rddri ve . Co op er was in di ct edforon e co un t o f kn owi ng ly recei vi ng ch il d po rn og rap hy as a re su ltof h is do wnl oa di ng th e im ag es an d o ne co un t o f m ai li ng ch il d p orno gr ap hy as a re su ltof h is sen di ng th em to hi s fo rm er ce ll m at e. Befo re tri al , th e g ov ern m en t fi le d aFed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 4 04 (b ) no ti ce, i nd ic at in g i ts in te ntto in tro du ce ev id en ce o f Co op er’s p rio r co nv ic ti on s fo r th ree c ou nt s o f ch il d
m ol es ta ti on . Coo pe r res po nd edwith am ot io n i n l im in e to ex cl ud e ev id en ce o f th os e co nv ic ti on s. Th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d C oo pe r’s m ot io n a ndadm it te d t he
ev id en ce u nd er Ru le 41 4 a ndalt ern at iv el y un de r Ru le 40 4( b)
. At tria l, two g ov ern m en t wi tn es se s wh o h advi ewedth e im ag es Co op er h ad
m ai le d t es ti fie d t ha t the y

th ou gh t the im ag es were o f ch il dr enun de r th e ag e o f 18 —“ so m e y ou ng ,” “ so m e p rep ub es cen t,” a nd“ so m e jus t af te r pube rty.” An
ex pe rt wi tn es s al so tes ti fie d t ha t i n h is op in io n the im ag es ap pe aredto be of r eal , an d n otvi rtu al , chi ldren . The jury fou ndCo op er n otgu il ty of kn owi ng ly
rece iv in g c hi ldpo rn og rap hy, butfou ndhi m gu il ty of m ai li ng ch il d p orno gr ap hy. The di st ric t co urt s en te nc edCo op er t o t he st atut ory m in im um of 1 80 m on th s im pr is on m en t.

3Co op er t im el y ap pe al edfro m

hi s co nv ic ti on , con te nd in g t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredin adm it ti ng ev id en ce o f hi s p rio r co nv ic ti on s an d t ha t the ev id en ce the go ve rn m en t i nt ro du cedat t ria l d idno t s uf fic ie nt ly sup po rt t he jury’ s g ui lt y ve rd ic t. W e d eal with e ach in tu rn .

1 II. Co op er co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinadm it ti ng th e ev id en ce o f hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on s u nd er Ru le 41 4 b ecau se th atrul e is un co ns ti tu ti on al on it s fa ce an d a s ap pl ie d t o h im

in th is cas e. W e “ av oi d re ach in g c on st itut io na l que st io ns in adva nc e o f th e n eces si ty of de ci di ng th em .” Ly ng v. Nw. In di anCem et ery Pro te ct iv e Ass ’n, 48 5 U.S. 4 39 , 44 5, 1 08 S.Ct . 13 19 , 13 23 (19 88 ). Andwe can av oi d t he co ns ti tu ti on al qu es ti on inth is cas e b ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt al te rn at iv el y

adm it te d t he ev id en ce o f th e p rio r co nv ic ti on s u nd er Ru le 40 4( b) , whi chCo op er d oe s n otch al le ng e o n c on st itut io na l g ro un ds
. Cooper also c ontends that the district court’ s oral dec ision to admitevidenc e of his prior 1 convictions and de ny

his moti on in limi ne wa s insufficient to per mit meaningf

ul appellate r eview beca use the c ourt did not ex plicitly identify the re asons why

it concluded that the risk of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value unde r Rule 403. The c ourt, howeve r, hea

rd and c onsidered e x tensive written a nd oral a rguments from both sides about whether the unfa ir prejudice of the e vidence of his prior convic tions subst antially outweighed its probative va lue. B ased on those a rguments, the court a dmitted the evidence , expli citly finding that it satisfied the requir ements of Rule 403. The district court’s de cision and the pa rties’ extensive arguments about whethe r the e vidence of the prior convictions should be admitted under Rule 403 a

re e nough for us to conduc t a meaning ful appe llate re view. See Cox Enters., Inc. v. Ne ws-Journal Corp., 510 F.3d 1350, 1360 (11th Cir. 2007) ( “We will find abuse of discretion only

when . . . ne ither the district cour t’s decision nor the r ecor d provide suff icient explanation to enable mea ningf ul appellate r eview.” ).

4W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s o nl y for anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Elli so r, 52 2 F .3d12 55 , 12 66 n.1 2 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 8)
. Ru le 40 4( b) pro vi de s t ha t ev id en ce o f ot he r cri m es is no t ad m is si bl e to pro ve a pe rs on ’s cha ract er i n o rd er t o s ho w th e p ers on act edinco nf orm ity with t ha t ch arac te r. Fed . R. Evi d. 4 04 (b ). Suc h e vi de nc e is adm is si bl e, ho wev er, i f of fere d to pro ve m ot iv e, op po rtu ni ty, in te nt , pre pa rat io n, p lan, kno wled ge , id en ti ty, or ab se nc e o f m is ta ke or a cci de nt . Id. Thu s fo r ev id en ce o f ot he r cri m es to be adm it te d u nd er Ru le 40 4( b) , itm us t b e rel ev an t t o a n i ss ue ot he r th anth e de fen da nt ’s cha ract er; th e g ov ern m en t m us t o ffersu ffi ci en t p ro of

so th atth e jury
co ul d fi ndth e d efen da ntco m m it te d t he earl ie r cri m e; an d t he pro ba ti ve va lu e m us t no t b e subs ta nt ia ll y

ou twei gh edby its un fai r pr ejud ic e. Ell is or , 52 2 F .3dat 1 26 7. Co op er d oe s n otarg ue th atth e ev id en ce o f hi s p rio r co nv ic ti on s was no t re le va nt to so m ethi ng ot he r th anhi s ch arac te r orth atth e p ro of th e g ov ern m en t o ffer edof th e p rio r co nv ic ti on s was in su ffi ci en t. He arg ue s o nl y th atth e p ro ba ti ve va lu e o f th e ev id en ce was subs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh edby its un fai r pr ejud ic e. Ru le 40 3 p ro vi de s t ha t re le va ntev id en ce “ m ay be ex cl ud edif i ts pro ba ti ve va lu e is subs ta nt ia ll y

ou twei gh edby the da ng er o f un fai r pr ejud ic e.” Fed . R. Evi d. 40 3. “ Inev al ua ti ng th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng un de r Ru le 40 3, we v ie w th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to adm is si on , m ax im iz in g i ts pro ba ti ve va lu e 5an d m in im iz in g i ts un du e p reju di ci al im pa ct .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Bradbe rry , 46 6 F.3 d 1 24 9, 1 25 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . “ The co urt’s d is cret io n t o e xc lu de ev id en ce un de r Ru le 40 3 i s n arro wly ci rcu m sc rib ed . Rul e 4 03 is anex tra or di na ry rem edy whi chsh ou ldbe us edon ly spa rin gl y si nc e itpe rm it s t he tri al co urt t o e xc lu de
co nc ed ed ly pro ba ti ve ev id en ce.” Un it edSta te s v . Chu rch , 95 5 F .2d68 8, 7 00 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Sim il ari ty betweenth e ear li er cr im e an d t he ch arg edco nduc t wi ll m ak e th e ear li er o ffen se “ hi gh ly pro ba ti ve with reg ardto a de fen da nt ’s in te ntin th e ch arg edoff en se .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Ram ire z, 42 6 F .3d13 44 , 13 54 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). The ev id en ce o f Co op er’s p rio r co nv ic ti on s was hi gh ly pro ba ti ve be cau se it te nd edto sh ow t ha t the Co op er i nt en ti on al ly down lo ad edch il d p orno gr ap hy, tha t he kn ew th e im ag es were ch il d p orno gr ap hy, andth athe ha d n otmis take n t he m fo r an yth in g o th er tha n t ha t. Tha t s ho win g was esp eci al ly relev an t t o t he go ve rn m en t’s ca se be cau se Co op er ad m it te d tha t h e h addo wnl oa de d the po rn og rap hi c p ic tu res , bu t ar gu edat t ria l tha t h e was un aware th e im ag es were pi ctur es of m in or s. Ad di ti on al ly, an y un fai r pr ejud ic e was gre at ly min im iz ed be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt adm it te d t he ev id en ce i n t he li m it edform of c ert ifi ed
co nv ic ti on s i ns te adof l iv e te st im on y , th e sp eci fic de ta il s o f th e cri m es were n ot di sc lo se d, an d the di st ric t co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury tha t the ev id en ce was on ly to b e 6co ns id eredforth e li m it edpu rp os e o f pr ov in g C oo pe r’s in te nt , kn owl ed ge , and

la ckof m is ta ke . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y adm it ti ng ev id en ce o f Co op er’s p rio r co nv ic ti on s u nd er Ru le 40 4( b)
. II. W e rev ie w de n ov o t he su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce, v ie win g t he ev id en ce i n th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e v erd ic t. Un it edSta te s v . Tho m ps on , 47 3 F .3d 11 37 , 11 42 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). “ It i s n oten ou gh fora de fen dantto pu t fo rth a reas on ab le hypo th es is of i nn oc en ce, b ecau se th e is su e is no t wh ethe r a jury
reas on ab ly cou ldha ve acqui tt edbu t wh ethe r itreas on ab ly cou ldha ve fou ndgu il t be y on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Id . To es tabl is h t he off en se of m ai li ng ch il d po rn og rap hy, the go ve rn m en t m us t p ro ve th atth e d efen dant(1) kn owi ng ly (2)
m ai le d (3 ) an y

ch il d p orno gr ap hy. See 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 2A( a)(1 ). Co op er ar gu es on ly tha t the go ve rn m en t fa il edto m eetit s b ur de n i n p ro vi ng th atth e im ag es were re al , andno t v irtua l, an d t ha t the im ag es were o f ch il dr en who were ac tu al ly min or s. Su ffi ci en t ev id en ce, h owe ve r, supp orts th e jury’ s ve rd ic t. Alt ho ug h C oo pe r de ni edth athe kn ew th e im ag es were ch il d po rn og rap hy, he adm it te d t o fi nd in g t he im ag es us in g s earc h t erm s s uc h a s “ na ke d y ou ng bo y s.” Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Pru it t, 6 38 F.3d76 3, 7 67 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (fi nd in g c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce, s uc h a s t he factth atth e d efen da ntha d s earc he d 7fo r im ag es us in g t erm s l ik e “ nu de li tt le bo y ,” su ffi ci en t fo r a jury to f in d t ha t the de fen da ntkn owi ng ly recei ve d c hi ldpo rn og rap hy). T wo g ov ern m en t wi tn es se s te st ifi edth atso m e o f th e im ag es ap pe aredto be of “ y ou ng ” an d “ pr ep ub es cen t” ch il dr en . See Un it edSta te s v . Sm it h, 4 59 F.3d12 76 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (h ol di ng th atth e actua l p ho to gr ap hs an d t he tes ti m on y of t wo wi tn es se s tha t the ph ot og rap hs ap pe aredto be of am in orch il d wer e su ffi ci en t s o t ha t “ a rea so nabl e juro r co ul d fi ndbe y on d areas on ab le do ub t tha t the vi ct im was s o o bv io us ly a
m in orth atth e d efen da ntm us t h av e kno wn as m

uc h” ). Andon e ex pe rt wi tn es s te st ifi edth atin hi s ex pe rt o pi ni on th e im ag es ap pe aredto be of r eal an d n otvi rtu al ch il dr en . The ev id en ce o f Co op er’s p rio r co nv ic ti on s fo r th ree c ou nt s o f ch il d
m ol es ta ti on als o wei gh edag ai ns t the po ss ib il it y th athe m is to okth e im ag es for
an yth in g o th er than wh atth ey were— po rn og rap hi c p ic tu res of m in orch il dr en . Fi na ll y , th e jury was sh own th e im ag es , andlef t fr ee t o c on cl ud e, ba se d o n i ts own jud gm en t, tha t tho se im ag es de pi ct edactua l ch il dr enbe lo w th e ag e o f 18 . See Sm ith, 4 59 F.3dat 1 28 7. Acco rd in gl y , a reas on ab le jury co ul d h av e co nc lu de d th atCo op er kno win gl y

m ai le d c hi ldpo rn og rap hy. AFFIRMED.

8