FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 12, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 05 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-0 00 75 -J RH-WLB-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 Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us REGINALD LON

NEL CRAY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 12 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Reg in al d Lo nn el Cray app eal s h is co nv ic ti on s fo r rec ei ptof c hi ld

po rn og rap hy, in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 52 A(a)(2 ), an d p os se ss io n o f ch il d po rn og rap hy, in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 52 A(a)(5 )(B) . On ap pe al , Cray 1 pr es en ts sev eral arg um en ts forth e rev ers al of h is co nv ic ti on s. Be fo re ad dr es si ng hi s ar gu m en ts , we setou t, i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e v erd ic ts , sal ie ntfact s th e ev id en ce es tabl is he d. 2 The Gov ern m en t’s ca se was p utto ge th er b y ag en ts of the Department o f Hom el an d S ecu rity , Im

m ig rat io n a ndCu st om s En fo rcem en t, the FBI, an d t he Geo rg iaBu reauof I nv es ti ga ti on . Usin g v ari ou s i nv es ti ga ti ve tec hn ique s, in cl ud in g u nd erco ve r acc es s t o apa rti cu lar subs cri pt io n- ba se d c hi ldpo rn og rap hy web si te (“ W eb si te ”), the ag en ts ob ta in edde ta il edin fo rm at io n abo utth e Webs it e’s

Cray was convicted on a superc eding indictment. The district court di s m i s s ed the first 1 indictment without prejudice on spee dy trial grounds. We do this beca

use Cray challeng es the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e to convict. We revie w 2 the s ufficie ncy of t he evidence de novo. United St ates v. Frazi er , 605 F.3d 1271, 1278 (11th Cir. 2010). In makingthis determination, we consider “the evidenc e in the l ight most favor able to the Gover nment, with all rea sonable infere nces and cre dibility choice s made i n t h e Gover nment’s favor .” Id. (citation omitted). The evidenc e need not be inconsistent wi t h ev ery rea sonable hy pothesis except that of guilt, provided a reasonable trier of fac t could find that the evidenc e established the defe ndant’s guilt beyond a rea sonable doubt. Unit ed St a t es v. Merrill , 513 F.3d 1293, 1299 (11th Cir. 2008). Credibility questions are answe red by the j ury , and we will assume that the jury answe red them all in a manner t hat s upports the verdict. United St ates v. Thompson , 473 F.3d 1137, 1142 ( 11th Cir. 2006). 2subs cri be rs an d a ss oc ia te d e -m ai l ac co un ts . 3

On M arch 25 , 20 08 , Cray, us in g t he na m e Reg in al d C ray, a Fi rs t Nat io na l Ban k S ou th (“ FNB”) cred itcard , a po stoff ic e b ox ad dr es s i n F ort Go rd on , Geo rg ia , anem ai l ad dr es s

4 gq fat s0 6@ y ah oo .co m , an d atel ep ho ne nu m be r, pu rch as eda 30 -d ay

subs cri pt io n t o the W eb si te for$7 9.9 9. AfterCray 5 subs cri be d, Be ll So uth.n et .Inc ., hi s i nt ern etservi ce p ro vi de r, as si gn eda sp eci fic In te rn etPro to co l (“ IP”) ad dr es s, 6 8.2 17 .24 4.8 7, t o h is res id en ce. The ne xtda y , Mar ch26 , at 1 :4 2 a .m ., Cray , us in g t ha t IP ad dr es s, ac ces se d t he W eb si te an d vi ewedsev eral ch il d p orno gr ap hi c m ov ie s. Sh ortl y th erea fte r, Bel lS ou th ch an ge d th e IP as si gn edto th e res id en ce t o 7 4.2 03 .18 1.2 5. OnMarc h 2 7, 2 00 9, Cr ay us ed anIP ad dr es s co nt ro ll edby Com cas t Co m m un ic at io ns , 67 .16 2.2 48 .11 9, t o a cces s th e Webs it e fro m

Dov er, Del aware . He vi ewed14 m ov ie s an d t hr ee p ag es of ch il d p orno gr ap hy onth atoc cas io n. Usi ng hi s 7 4.2 03 .18 1.2 5 IP ad dr es s, Cr ay 6 The ag ents executed a sear ch war rant on the Website’s computer serve r which housed the 3 child pornography , e.g., imag es, videos, and movies. The sear ch uncover ed the weblog s maintained by the Website that detailed the activities of the subscriber s: when they logg ed in, what they viewed and the Interne t Protocol address they used to ac cess the se rver . Cray , an office r in the Army rese rves, was on active duty at For t Gordon. The post office 4 box addre ss and the telephone number be longe d to him. FNB sent a bank statement containing the cre dit car d $79.99 charg e to the post office box . 5 Cray chose the user na

me “g qfats06" in acc essingthe Website’s serve r. Cray had g one to Washington, D.C. to attend a job fair held from Marc h 26 to Marc h 31. 6 His FNB bank stateme nt showed two ATM withdra wals in Dover , Delaw are , on Marc h 28. 3al so acce ss edth e Webs it e o n Ap ril 1, 1 1, 1 3, 1 4 , 2 00 8, an d v ie wedco un tl es s

pi eces of c hi ldpo rn og rap hy—m ov ie s, v id eo s, an d i m ag es . On Ap ril 28 , 20 08 , age nt s m etwith C ray athi s re si de nc e an d e xe cu te d a se arch warran t. Whil e th ey were the re, h e co ns en te d t o a n i nt erv ie w. He adm it te d t o t he ag en ts th at , us in g h is Dell lap to p, h e h adacce ss edth e Webs it e, kn owi ng th atitco nt ai ne d c hi ldpo rn og rap hy, andvi ewedth e co nt en ts of i ts serve r. He was aware t ha t the co nt en ts in vo lv edreal ch il dr en , no t “ m id ge ts or m or ph ed im ag es .” He sa idth athe ha d v ie wedch il d p orno gr ap hy ov er the W eb si te for ab ou t fo ury ears , bu t was care fu l n otto do wnl oa d o r sa ve th e im ag es to hi s co m pu te r. A fore ns ic ev al ua ti on of C ray’ s l ap to p re ve al edth atCray hadvi ewedat le as t 1 9 v id eo s. W it h t hi s b rie f rec it at io n o f Cra y ’s us e o f hi s s ub sc rip ti onto th e Webs it e, we tu rnto th e arg um en ts Cray pres en ts . I. Cray argu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinde nyin g h is m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of acqui tt al , con te nd in g t ha t t he ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o c on vi ct . The 7 ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t, h e subm it s, b ecau se no actua l i m ag es of c hi ld Cray als o co n t en d s that the di strict court abused i ts discretion in denying his motion for 7 new tria l. The conte ntion is frivolous, thus war rantingno discussion. 4po rn og rap hy were fo un d o n h is co m pu te r. W e rev ie w de no vo th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al on su ffi ci en cy -o f-ev id en ce g ro un ds . Uni te d St at es v. Frisk

e , 64 0 F .3d12 88 , 12 90 (11 Cir . 20 11 ). th Pu rs uantto § 2 25 2A( a)(2 ) of Tit le 18 of t he U.S. Cod e, itis il le ga l fo r an y pe rs on to (1) kn owi ng ly recei ve or d is tri bu te (2) an y ch il d p orno gr ap hy or m at eri al co nt ai ni ng ch il d p orno gr ap hy (3) tha t h as be enm ai le d o r tr an sp orte d i n o r affe ct in g i nt ers ta te co m

m erce by any

m ean s, i nc lu di ng by com pu te r. 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 2A( a)(2 ). Pur su an t t o § 22 52 A(a)(5 )(B) , itis il le ga l fo r an y pe rs on to (1 ) kn owi ng ly pos se ss or a cces s wi th in te ntto vi ew (2 ) an y m at eri al th atco nt ai ns anim ag e o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy (3) tha t h as be entrans po rte d i n o r affe ct in g in te rs ta te co m

m erce by any

m ean s, i nc lu di ng by com pu te r. 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 2A( a)(5 )(B) . In Uni te d Sta tes v. Pr ui tt , 63 8 F .3d76 3, 7 65 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ), th e d efen da nt so ug htou t an d v ie wedch il d p orno gr ap hy on li ne , andch il d p orno gr ap hy im ag es ap pe aredin th e cac he an d u na ll oc at edsp ace o f hi s co m pu te r. W e n ot edth at un al lo cat edsp ace c on ta in s d el et edda tath atcan no t b e se enor a cces se d b y th e u se r wit ho utfor en si c so ftwa re, i s wri tt enov er t o s to re n ew in fo rm at io n, an d e ve n i f ret rie ve d, al l t ha t ca n b e kno wn ab ou t t he fil e, ot he r th anit s co nt en t, i s t ha t i t o nc e ex is te d o n t he co m

pu te r’s ha rddri ve . Id

. at76 5 n .2. We sta te d t ha t ev id en ce tha t 5a p ers on so ug htou t ch il d p orno gr ap hy ov er the in te rn et , andha s a c om pu te r co nt ai ni ng ch il d- po rn og rap hy im ag es , eve n i n t he un al lo cat edsp ace o r cac he , “ can co un t as cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce tha t a p ers on ha s kno win gl y rece iv edch il d po rn og rap hy.” Id

. at76 6 (q uo ta ti on s an d b rack et s o m it te d) . W e n ot edth atth e jury hadno ob li ga ti on to cred itPru it t’s ex pe rt, wh o t es ti fie d tha t a v iru s was res po ns ib le forth e im ag es fou ndin th e cac he an d u na ll oc at edsp ace, a ndhe ldth at a rea so nabl e jury cou ldha ve co nc lu de d b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t t ha t Prui ttha d kn owi ng ly recei ve d c hi ldpo rn og rap hy. Id. at76 7. As a p rel im in ary m atte r, Cray do es no t d is pu te th atth e m at eri al s h e an d ot he r subs cri be rs vi ewedon th e Webs it e m etth e d efi ni ti on of c hi ldpo rn og rap hy, orth atth ey

were tran sp orte d thr ou gh in te rs ta te or f or ei gn co m

m erce . Acco rd in gl y , he h as ab an do ne d any clai m s i n t hi s re sp ect . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Jerni ga n , 34 1 F .3d12 73 , 12 83 n.8 (11 thCir . 20 03 ) (s ta ti ng th atis su es no t ra is ed on ap pe al wil l b e co ns id eredab an do ne d) . Bec au se th e jury reaso nabl y co ul d fi ndbe y on d areas on ab le do ub t t ha t Cr ay acce ss edth e Webs it e wit h i nt en t t o v ie w chi ldpo rn og rap hy, in v io la ti on of § 2 25 2A( a)(2 ) an d (a )(5 )(B) , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in de nyin g h is m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al . II. 6Cray argu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredindi sm is si ng hi s fi rs t i nd ic tm en t

wit ho utpre

jud ic e fo r a v io la ti on of t he Sp eed y Trial Act, 1 8 U.S.C. § § 3 16 1- 31 74 , be cau se th ere s ho ul d b e a p res um pt io n i n fa vo r of

di sm is sa l wi thpre

jud ic e fo r vi ol at io ns of t he Act, an d b ecau se th e fac to rs setforth in th e Actrequi red di sm is sa l wi th pre

jud ic e. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to di sm is s anin di ctm en t wi thor wit ho utpre

jud ic e fo r a v io la ti on of t he Sp eed y Trial Act fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ow n , 18 3 F .3d13 06 , 13 09 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). The re i s n o pr efer en ce fo r di sm is sa l wi th or wi th ou t p reju di ce. Id. at 1 31 0; se e Uni te d St at es v. Ta

yl or , 48 7 U.S. 3 26 , 33 5, 1 08 S.Ct . 24 13 , 24 18 , 10 1 L.Ed .2d29 7 (1 98 8) (s ta ti ng th atth e Sp eed y

Trial Act l eftth e d eci si on to di sm is s wi th or wi th ou t pr ejud ic e to th e d is cret io n o f di st ric t co urts ). The d is tri ctco urt, h owe ve r, m us t co ns id er thr ee fa ct or s i n m ak in g i ts de ci si on : (1 ) th e se rio us ne ss of t he off en se ; (2 ) th e fac ts an d c irc um st an ces of t he cas e le ad in g t o t he di sm is sa l; an d (3 ) th e im pa ctof arep ro se cu ti on onth e ad m in is tra ti onof ju st ic e an d t he Sp eed y Trial Act. Bro wn , 18 3 F .3dat 1 31 0 (quo ti ng 18 U.S.C. § 3 16 2( a)(1 ) an d (2 )). Und er the fir stfact or , wher e th e o ffen se is ser io us , th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d di sm is s wi th pre

jud ic e o nl y

fora co rres po nd in gl y

sev ere d el ay . Uni te d Sta tes v. Rus so , 74 1 F .2d12 64 , 12 67 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). W e h av e h el d t ha t a s ev ere d el ay of 768 da y s was no t, b y it se lf, s uf

fic ie ntto requi re d is m is sa l o f anin di ct m en t wi th pr ejud ic e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia ms , 31 4 F .3d55 2, 5 60 (11 thCir . 20 02 ). W e al so ha ve reco gn iz edth e se rio us ne ss of o ffen se s i nv ol vi ng th e p os se ss io n o f ch il d po rn og rap hy. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Pugh , 51 5 F .3d11 79 , 11 98 -9 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (rec og ni zi ng , inth e se nt en ci ng co nt ex t, tha t re cei vi ng or p os se ss in g c hi ld po rn og rap hy is a s eri ou s cr im e). Und er the sec on d fa ct or , if t he de la y is att rib ut ab le to th e Gov ern m en t’s ne gl ig en ce o r in adve rte nc e, di sm is sa l wi th pre jud ic e is no t au to m at ic al ly requ ire d

“ [w]here t he vi ol at io n o f th e Actis sl ig htan d t he ot he r two fact or s m il it at e in fav orof r ep ro se cu ti on .” Rus so , 74 1 F .2dat 1 26 7. We hav e ex pr es se d a pr efer en ce fo r di sm is sa l wi th ou t p reju di ce wh ere t he de la y is th e res ul t o f adm in is tra ti ve co nf

us io n b y th e d is tri ctco urt. Uni te d Sta tes v. Mi ra nd a , 83 5 F.2 d 8 30 , 83 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 8) . Und er the th irdfact or , th ere i s al m os t al way s s om e te ns io n b etween th e adm in is tra ti on of ju st ic e an d a dm in is tra ti on of t he Act b ecau se th e d efen da ntcan arg ue th atdi sm is sa l wi th ou t p reju di ce re nd ers th e Acteffe ct iv el y m ean in gl es s, whi le th e Gov ern m en t can a rg ue th atth e p ub li c in te res t re qu ire s t ha t o ffen de rs be br ou gh t t o ju st ic e. W

il li ams , 31 4 F .3dat 5 59 -6 0. Th is fact orals o a ll ows co urts to co ns id er ag gr av at in g a ndm it ig at in g fa ct or s, s uc h a s t he len gth o f th e d el ay an d 8pr ejud ic e to th e d efen da nt . Id. at56 0.

As an in it ia l m at te r, th ere i s n o p refe ren ce fo r on e type o f di sm is sa l wi th or wit ho utpre

jud ic e u nd er the Sp eed y

Trial Act, an d, thu s, Cr ay ’s arg um en t t ha t we sh ou ldad op t a p res um

pt io n i n fa vo r of

di sm is sa l wi th pre

jud ic e is witho utm eri t. Bec au se th e fi rs t t wo fa ct or s m il it at e in fav orof d is m is sa l wi th ou t p reju di ce wh il e th e th irdfact or

is ne ut ral , andbe cau se th e d el ay res ul te d i n p artfro m

th e d is tri ct co urt’s ad m in is tra ti ve co nf us io n, t he co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n di sm is si ng Cray’ s fi rs t i nd ic tm en t wi th ou t p reju di ce. III. Cray argu es th athe is en ti tl edto supp res si on of e vi de nc e d is co ve reddu rin g th e se arch of h is res id en ce b ecau se th e affi da vi t fo r th e se arch warran t was ba se d on hi s IP subs cri be r in fo rm at io n a ndba nkreco rd s t ha t t he Gov ern m en t o bt ai ne d im pr op erl y th ro ug h t he us e o f ad m in is tra ti ve su m m on se s, p ur su an t t o 1 9 U.S.C. § 1 50 9. He ar gu es , m or eo ve r, th atth e u se of t he su m m on se s v io la te d t he Rig htto Fi na nc ia l Pr iv acy A ct(“ RFPA” ), 12 U.S.C. §§ 34 01 -3 41 7, an d t he Elec tro ni c Co m m un ic at io ns Pri va cy

Act (“ ECPA”), 1 8 U.S.C. § § 1 51 0- 15 22 , andth atth os e vi ol at io ns en ti tl e h im

to supp res si on of e vi de nc e. Ourrev ie w of adi st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o s up pr es s i s a m ix ed qu es ti on of l aw an d fa ct . Uni te d Sta tes v. Del an cy , 50 2 F .3d12 97 , 13 04 (11 th Cir . 920 07 ). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in gs of f actforcle ar erro r, co ns tru in g t he ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p art y th atpre va il edin th e d is tri ctco urt. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s i nt erp ret at io n a ndap pl ic at io n o f th e la w de no vo . Id. A st atut ory

vi ol at io n b y

it se lf, wi th ou t anun de rlyin g c on st itut io na l v io la ti on , is in su ffi ci en t t o ju st ify the ex cl us io n o f ev id en ce o bt ai ne d i n v io la ti on of t he st atut e in qu es ti on , un le ss th e d efen da ntsh ows th atCo ng res s p ro vi de d s uc h arem edy for a v io la ti on of t he st atut e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Th omp so n , 93 6 F .2d12 49 , 12 51 (11 th Ci r. 19 91 ) (co ll ect in g num ero us ex tra -ci rcu itde ci si on s) . The ECPA pr ov id es th atth e Gov ern m en t m ay requi re an ele ctro ni c co m m un ic at io n s erv ic e to di sc lo se a reco rdor o th er i nf orm at io n p ert ai ni ng to a subs cri be r orcu st om er und er ce rta in , li m it edcir cu m st an ces , in cl ud in g wh enth e go ve rn m en t o bt ai ns (1) a warra nt , (2) a co urt o rd er, (3 ) co ns en t o f th e subs cri be r, or(4) anadm in is tra ti ve subp oe na . 18 U.S.C. § 2 70 3( c). The ECPA au th or iz es an ag gr ie ve d p art y

to fil e a ci vi l ac ti on fora kn owi ng or i nt en ti on al vi ol at io n o f th e st atut e b y a pe rs on or e nt ity

ot he r th anth e Uni te d S ta te s. 1 8 U.S.C. § 27 07 (a). The Act p res cri be s re li ef i n t he form of p rel im in ary equi tabl e o r de cl arat ory rel ie f, da m ag es , andreas on ab le att orne y ’s fees an d l it ig at io n c os ts . Id. § 2 70 7( b) . The ECPA fu rth er p ro vi de s t ha t t he rem ed ie s an d s an ct io ns itpro vi de s ar e th e o nl y jud ic ia l re m ed ie s an d s an ct io ns forno nc on st itut io na l v io la ti on s o f th e Act . 1018 U.S.C. § 2 70 8.

Inin te rp ret in g t he W ire tap Act , 18 U.S.C. §§ 25 10 -2 52 2, wh ic h Ti tl e I o f th e ECPA am en de d t o a dd res s t he in te rcep ti on of e le ctro ni c co m m un ic at io ns , we he ldth at , “ whi le th e Wiret ap Act cl earl y pro vi de s cr im in al an d c iv il san ct io ns for th e u nl awfu l i nt erce pt io n o f el ect ro ni c co m m un ic at io ns , th e Actpro vi de s n o b as is fo r m ov in g t o s up pr es s s uc h c omm un ic at io ns .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ste ig er , 31 8 F.3 d 1 03 9, 1 04 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . W e st at edth at“ [d ]esp it e th e factth atth e ECPA am en de d n um ero us sec ti on s o f th e Wiret ap Act t o i nc lu de ‘elect ro ni c co m

m un ic at io ns ,’ th e ECPA d idno t am en d § 25 15 ,” whi ch au th or iz ed supp res si on of e vi de nc e as a rem edy so le ly for the il le ga l i nt erce pt io n o f wire an d or al co m m un ic at io ns , bu t n otforele ctro ni c co m m un ic at io ns . Id. at 1 05 0. We co nc lu de d t ha t the W ire tap Actdi d n otpro vi de a st atut ory supp res si on rem edy

for un la wfu ll y

acqui redele ctro ni c co m

m un ic at io ns be cau se “ th e le gi sl at iv e h is to ry m ak es cle ar tha t a s ta tu to ry supp res si on rem edy

do es no t ex is t fo r un la wfu l in te rcep ti on s o f ‘elect ro ni c co m m un ic at io ns .’ ” Id. at10 51 . W e h av e n otad dr es se d wh ethe r th e RFP A pro vi de s a s ta tu to ry supp res si on rem edy . The RF PA pr es cri be s re m ed ie s fo r vi ol at io ns of the Act i n t he form of a $1 00 fin e, actua l d am ag es su st ai ne d b y th e cu st om er, p un it iv e d am ag es , andco st s an d a tt orne y ’s fees . 12 U.S.C. § 3 41 7( a). The rem ed ie s an d s an ct io ns de sc rib ed 11in th e RFP A are ex cl us iv e. Id. § 3 41 7( d) .

Inord er fo r ev id en ce t o b e supp res se d b as edona vi ol at io n o f th e Fo urth Am en dm en t, a cl ai m an t b ears th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g tha t t he sea rchwas u nl awfu l an d t ha t h e h ada le gi ti m at e ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy. Uni te d Sta tes v. McK en no n , 81 4 F .2d15 39 , 15 42 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ). T o e st ab li sh a reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy in the ob

ject o f a ch al le ng edsea rch , th e cl ai m an t m us t s ho w (1) th athe m an ife st ed“ a subjec ti ve ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy ,” an d (2 ) a wil li ng ne ss by soc ie ty

“ to reco gn iz e th atex pe ct at io n a s l eg it im at e.” Id. at 1 54 3. If the cla im an t es tabl is he s an ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy , th enth e b ur de n s hi fts to th e g ov ern m en t t o sh ow t ha t t he sea rch was re as on ab le un de r a rec og ni zedex cep ti on to th e warra nt requi rem en t. Uni te d S

ta tes v . Har ris , 52 6 F .3d13 34 , 13 38 (1 1t h C ir . 20 08 ). The Supr em e Co urt co ns is te nt ly has he ldth atth ere i s n o l eg it im at e ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy in i nf orm at io n ape rs on vo lu nt ari ly revea ls to th irdpa rti es . Uni te d S ta tes v . Mil le r , 42 5 U.S. 4 35 , 44 2- 43 , 96 S.Ct . 16 19 , 16 24 , 48 L.Ed.2d71 (1 97 6) . Spe ci fic al ly

, th e Co urt h as he ldth atth ere i s n o re as on ab le ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy in b an k re co rd s, i nc lu di ng fin an ci al st at em en ts , bec au se th e rec or ds on ly co nt ai ne d i nf

orm at io n t he cu st om er v ol un ta ril y co nv ey edto th e b an k a ndit s em pl oyees i n t he ord in ary co ur se of b us in es s. Id. at 4 42 , 96 S.Ct . at 1 62 4. W e ha ve no t ad dr es se d i n apubl is he d o pi ni on whet he r a d efen dantha s a r eas on ab le 12ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy in s ub sc rib er i nf orm at io n p ro vi de d t o an i nt ern etservi ce pr ov id er . The ex cl us io na ry

rul e is a jud ic ia ll y

crea te d re m edy

de si gn edto saf

eg ua rd Fo urthAm en dm en t ri gh ts th ro ug h i ts de te rren t ef fect , andrequi res th atev id en ce ob ta in edth ro ug h a n i ll eg al sea rch m ay no t b e u se d b y

th e g ov ern m en t i n a subs eque ntcri m in al pro se cu ti on . Uni te d S ta tes v . Mar ti n , 29 7 F .3d13 08 , 13 12 (1 1t h C ir . 20 02 ). The Supr em e Co urt cr eat eda go od -fai th ex cep ti on to th is rul e, st at in g t ha t co urts sh ou ldge ne ral ly notho ldin adm is si bl e ev id en ce o bt ai ne d b y of fic ers act in g i n re as on ab le rel ia nc e upo n asea rch warran t l at er fo un d t o b e un supp orte d b y

pro babl e cau se . Uni te d S ta tes v . Leo n , 46 8 U.S. 8 97 , 92 2, 1 04 S.Ct . 34 05 , 34 20 , 82 L.Ed.2d67 7 (1 98 4) . Becau se th e p ur po se of t he ex cl us io na ry

rul e is to de te r un la wfu l p ol ic e m is co nduc t, the Leo n go od -fai th ex cep ti on wil l ap pl y

whenof fic ers en ga ge d i n “ ob

jecti ve ly reaso nabl e la w en fo rcem en t ac ti vi ty” andact edin go odfai th when th ey ob ta in edth e se arch warra nt . Mar ti n , 29 7 F .3dat 1 31 3. The Leo n go od -fai th ex cep ti on ap pl ie s i n a ll bu t fo urset s o f ci rcu m st an ces . Tho se cir cu m st an ces are: (1) wher e th e jud ge is su in g t he warran t was mis le d b y in fo rm at io n i n a n a f

fid av itth atth e af

fia ntkn ew was fal se or wo ul d h av e kno wn was fal se ex cep t fo r hi s re ck le ss di sr eg ardof t he tru th ; (2 ) whe re the is su in g ju dg e 13ha s “ who ll y

ab an do ne d” th e n eu tra l ju di ci al rol e su ch th atno reas on ab ly w el l tra in edof fic er wo ul d re ly on t he warran t; (3) wher e th e warrantis so lac ki ng in in di ci a o f pr ob ab le cau se th atof fic ia l b el ie f in it s v al id it y is en ti rel y

un reas on ab le ; an d (4 ) whe re the warran t i s fa ci al ly defi ci en t. Leo n , 46 8 U.S. at92 3, 1 04 S.Ct . at34 21 . Reg ard le ss of wh ethe r th e fed eral ag en ts vi ol at edth e ECPA o r RFPA th ro ug h t he ir u se of a dm in is tra ti ve su m m on se s, b oth s ta tu te s ex cl us iv el y au th or iz e ci vi l re m ed ie s fo r vi ol at io ns an d d o n otpro vi de supp res si onrem ed ie s. Th us , Cray m us t s ho w th atth e Gov ern m en t’s u se of h is subs cri be r in fo rm at io n a ndba nk reco rd s v io la te d t he Fo urth Am en dm en t t o warran t s up pr es si onof e vi de nc e. Even as su m in g t ha t Cr ay

ha d apro te ct edpri va cy

in te res t i n h is subs cri be r in fo rm at io n an d b an k re co rd s, the go od -fai thex cep ti on to th e ex cl us io na ry rul e ap pl ie s be cau se he do es no t ar gu e, an d n othi ng in th e rec or d i nd ic at es , th atan y of t he reco gn iz edex cep ti on s t o t he go od -fai th rul e ap pl ie s. IV. Cray argu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinpe rm it ti ng th e Gov ern m en t’s ex pe rt t o t es ti fy

th at , inhi s o pi ni on , Cray pe rs on al ly ope rat edhi s l ap to p t o a cces s a ch il d p orno gr ap hy webs it e whi le in Dov er, Del aware be cau se th e o pi ni on was ou ts id e th e sc op e o f hi s ex pe rti se , was u nr el iabl e, an d c ou ldhave be enm ad e b y 14th e Gov ern m en t dur in g c lo si ng arg um en t.

W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on reg ard in g t he adm is si bi li ty of ex pe rt te st im on y an d the rel iabi li ty of anex pe rt o pi ni onforab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Frazi er , 38 7 F .3d12 44 , 12 58 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) ( en ba nc ). In d oi ng so , we wil l af firm un le ss we fin d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt ap pl ie d t he wron g l eg al st an da rd orm ad e a cl ear e rro r of

jud gm en t. Id. at12 59 . Ru le 70 2 o f th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e p ro vi de s tha t: A witne ss who is qu al ifi edas a n e xp ertby kno wled ge , sk il l, ex pe rie nc e, tr ai ni ng , or e du cat io n m ay tes ti fy in th e fo rm

of a n op in io n o r ot he rwis e if

: (a) t he expe rt’s s ci en ti fic , tec hn ic al , or o th er s pe ci al iz edkn owl ed ge wil l h el p t he tri er o f fac t t o u nd ers ta ndth e ev id en ce o r to de te rm in e a factin is su e; (b ) th e te st im on y

is ba se d o n s uf

fic ie ntfact s o r da ta ; (c) t he tes ti m on y

is th e p ro du ctof r el iabl e p rin ci pl es an d m etho ds ; an d (d ) th e ex pe rt h as rel iabl y ap pl ie d t he pri nc ip le s an d m etho ds to th e fact s o f th e cas e. Fed . R. Evi d. 7 02 (20 11 ). The Supr em e Co urt h as pro vi de d ano n- ex cl us iv e li stof fact or s fo r di st ric t co urts to co ns id er i n d et erm in in g t he rel iabi li ty of sc ie nt ifi c ex pe rt o pi ni on s. Dau be rt v. Merr el l Do w Pha rma ceu ti ca ls , Inc . , 50 9 U.S. 5 79 , 59 3- 94 , 11 3 S .Ct. 2 78 6, 2 79 6- 97 , 12 5 L.Ed .2d46 9 (1 99 3) . Thes e fac to rs in cl ud e: 15(1 ) whe th er the ex pe rt’s t he ory can be an d h as be entes te d; (2) whet he r th e th eo ry ha s b eensubjec te d t o p eer r ev ie w andpubl ic at io n; (3) th e kno wn o r po te nt ia l ra te of erro r of th e p art ic ul ar s ci en ti fic tec hn ique ; an d (4 ) whe th er the tec hn ique is ge ne ral ly accep te d i n t he sci en ti fic co m m un it y . Id. Thi s s am e cri te riaap pl ie s t o as se ss th e rel iabi li ty of no n- sc ie nt ifi c, ex pe rie nc e-b as edtes ti m on y . Fra zi er , 38 7 F.3 d a t 1 26 2. The se fact or s ar e g en eral gu id el in es an d a re i ll us tra ti ve , no t ex haus ti ve , andno t ev ery fact orwil l ap pl y in ev ery cas e. Exp erttes ti m on y wil l as si stth e tr ie r of

factif i t co nc ern s m at te rs th atare b ey on d t he un de rs ta nd in g o f th e av erag e la y

pe rs on . Id. The Gov ern m en t ex pe rt’s o pi ni on th atCray acces se d t he ch il d p orno gr ap hy web si te fro m

hi s l ap to p wh il e in Dov er, Del aware was n otou ts id e th e sc op e o f th e ex pe rt’s e xp ert is e, was no t u nr el iabl e, an d wo ul d b e h el pf ul to a jury. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng th e ex pe rt’s te st im on y . V. Cray argu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinall owi ng th e Gov ern m en t’s ex pe rt t o t es ti fy to in adm is si bl e h ears ay

da tarel at in g t o the ge og rap hi c lo cat io n o f IP ad dr es se s. Cra y arg ue s t ha t t he he ars ay

id en ti fic at io n o f th e g eo lo cat io n o f IP ad dr es se s b as edon in te rn etda taba se s o r se arch es is no t 16reas on ab ly reli edon by com pu te r ex pe rts , andth at , to th e ex te ntth e d is tri ctco urt weig he d the tes ti m on y

un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 7 03 , th e ad m is si on of t hi s te st im on y was c le ar erro r. Cray also arg ue s t ha t t he ex pe rt’s re li an ce o n h ears ay in st eadof p ro du ci ng a wit ne ss to tes ti fy as t o t he IP ad dr es s g eo lo cat io n in fo rm at io n v io la te d t he Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Per ez -Oli ver os , 47 9 F .3d77 9, 7 83 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). W e rev ie w de no vo whet he r he ars ay

st at em en ts are “ te st im on ia l” forpu rp os es of t he Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e. Uni te d Sta tes v. C ar ab al lo , 59 5 F .3d12 14 , 12 26 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). A hea rs ay

ob jecti on is in su ffi ci en t t o p res erv e a Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e cl ai m on ap pe al . Uni te d Sta tes v. C ha u , 42 6 F .3d13 18 , 13 21 -2 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . W e rev ie w evi de nt ia ry

rul in gs th atare n otsp eci fic al ly objec te d t o a t tria l, as is th e cas e h ere, fo r pl ai n e rro r on ly. Uni te d Sta tes v. Will if or d , 76 4 F .2d14 93 , 15 02 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). To es tabl is h p la inerro r, a d efen da ntm us t s ho w th atth ere i s

“ (1 ) erro r, (2 ) th atis pl ai n, an d (3 ) th ataffe ct s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. If a ll th ree co nd it io ns are m et , an app el la te co urt m ay th enex erci se it s d is cret io n t o n ot ic e a fo rfei te d e rro r, bu t o nl y

if (4 ) th e err orser io us ly affect s t he fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or publ ic rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Sw at zi e , 22 8 F .3d 12 78 , 12 81 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (el li ps es an d b rack et s o m it te d) . “ An erro r is pl ai n i f it 17is ob vi ou s an d c le ar u nd er cu rren t l aw.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Eck ha rdt , 46 6 F .3d93 8, 94 8 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 6) . “ An erro r th ataffec ts subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts is on e th ataffe ct ed th e o ut co m e o f th e d is tri ctco urt p ro ceed in gs .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Hen de rs on , 40 9 F.3 d 1 29 3, 1 30 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d) . Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 7 03 all ows ex pe rts to rel y up on tes ti m on y

whi ch it se lf wo ul d n othave be enadm is si bl e if ex pe rts inth e p art ic ul ar fi el d wo ul d reas on ab ly rely

on th os e k in ds of f

act s o r da tain form in g a n o pi ni on on th e subjec t. Fed . R. Evi d. 7 03 (20 11 ). Ru le 70 3 re qu ire s a b al an ci ng in qu iry, ho wev er, s ta ti ng th at“ if t he fact s o r da tawou ldot he rwis e b e in adm is si bl e, th e pr op on en t o f th e o pi ni on m ay di sc lo se th em

to th e jury on ly if th ei r pr ob at iv e va lu e in he lp in g t he jury ev al ua te th e o pi ni on subs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh s t he ir pr ejud ic ia l ef

fect .” Id. The Six th Am en dm en t p ro vi de s tha t “ [i]n a ll cri m in al pro se cu ti on s, t he accu se d s ha ll en

joy th e ri gh t . . . to be co nf

ro nt edwith t he witne ss es ag ai ns t hi m . . . .” U.S. Con st . am en d. VI. Fo r pu rp os es of b ot h the Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e an d t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e, he ars ay st at em en ts are d efi ne d a s o ral or writ te n a ss ert io ns , or n on ve rb al co nduc t o f a p ers on if i t i s i nt en de d t o b e an as se rti on . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. La mon s , 53 2 F .3d12 51 , 12 63 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (ci ti ng Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 8 01 (a) i n a na lyzin g aCo nf ro nt at io n C laus e 18is su e). Whe re the st at em en ts in qu es ti onare m ad e b y m ach in es an d n otby hu m an s, the y

are ex em ptfro m th e p urvi ew of

th e Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e. Id. at12 64 . The Co nf

ro nt at io n C laus e b ars th e ad m is si onof h ears ay ev id en ce tha t i s

“ te st im on ia l” un le ss th e wit ne ss is un av ai labl e an d t he de fen da ntha d apri or op po rtu ni ty for cro ss -ex am in at io n. Cra wf or d v . W as hi ng to n , 54 1 U.S. 3 6, 6 8, 1 24 S.Ct . 13 54 , 13 74 , 15 8 L.Ed .2d17 7 (2 00 4) . “ Test im on ia l” st at em en ts are t y pi cal ly

“ so le m n d ecl arat io n[ s] or a ffi rm at io n[ s] m ad e fo r th e p ur po se of e st ab li sh in g o r pr ov in g s om e fac t,” andm ay in cl ud e “ m at eri al su ch as a ffi da vi ts , cus to di al ex am in at io ns , pri ortes ti m on y th atth e d efen da ntwas u nabl e to cro ss -ex am in e, or si m il ar p retria l s ta te m en ts th atde cl aran ts wou ldreas on ab ly exp ectto be us ed pr os ecu to ria ll y .” Id. at 5 1, 1 24 S.Ct . at 1 36 4. In Dav is , th e Supr em e Co urt s ta te d t ha t s ta te m en ts are n on te st im on ia l wh en m ad e in th e co ur se of apo li ce i nt erro ga ti on un de r ci rcu m st an ces th atob jecti ve ly in di cat e th atth e p rimary

pu rp os e o f th e in te rro ga ti on is to en ab le po li ce t o re sp on d to anon go in g e m erg en cy . Dav is v. W as hi ng to n , 54 7 U.S. 8 13 , 12 6 S .Ct. 2 26 6, 16 5 L.Ed .2d22 4 (2 00 6) . Alte rn at iv el y , st at em en ts are t es ti m on ia l wh enth ere i s no on go in g e m erg en cy

an d t he st at em en t i s m ad e u nd er ci rcu m st an ces ob jecti ve ly in di cat in g tha t t he pri m ary pu rp os e o f th e in te rro ga ti on is to pro ve pa stev en ts th at are p ot en ti al ly relev an t t o fu tu re cr im in al pro se cu ti on . Id. at 8 22 , 12 6 S .Ct. 19at22 73 -7 4. Acco rd in gl y , th e Co urt h el d t ha t a v ic ti m ’s st at em en ts in res po ns e to a

91 1 o pe rat or ’s qu es ti on s wer e n ottes ti m on ia l h ears ay , th e ad m is si on of wh ic h wou ldvi ol at e th e Co nf

ro nt at io n C laus e, be cau se th e p rimary pu rp os e o f th e qu es ti on in g was to en ab le po li ce as si st an ce i n re sp on se to anon go in g e m erg en cy . Id. at 8 28 , 12 6 S .Ct. at22 77 . The Co urt, i n Mel en de

z-Dia z v. Ma ss ac hu se tt

s , 55 7 U.S. _

_, 1 29 S.Ct . 25 27 , 17 4 L.Ed .2d31 4 (2 00 9) , recen tl y rev is it edth e is su e o f wha t co ns ti tu te s a te st im on ia l s ta te m en t. The re, the de fen da ntob jecte d t o t he adm is si on of t hr ee labo rat ory

“ cert ifi cat es of a na lysis ” sh owi ng th atsei zedsubs ta nc es co nt ai ne d co cai ne . Id. at _

_, 1 29 S.Ct . at 2 53 1. Th e certi fic at es were ad m it te d i n c ou rt a s pr ima fa ci e ev id en ce o f th e co m po si ti on , qu al it y , andne t wei gh t o f th e subs ta nc e atis su e inth e p ro se cu ti on , pu rs ua ntto st at e la w. Id. The Co urt h el d t ha t t he se cert ifi cat es , whi ch itde sc rib edas “ qu it e p la in ly affid av it s,” we re t es ti m on ia l st at em en ts be cau se th ey

were m ad e u nd er o ath fo r th e p ur po se of e st ab li sh in g so m e fac t, an d u nd er ci rcu m st an ces wher e an ob jecti ve witne ss co ul d re as on ab ly be li ev e th at“ th e st at em en t wo ul d b e av ai labl e fo r us e ata la te r tr ia l.” Id. at _

__ , 12 9 S .Ct. at25 31 -3 2. Th us , th e Co urt h el d t ha t, ab se nta pr io r op po rtu ni ty to cro ss -ex am in e th e an al y st s, the de fen da ntwas e nt it le d t o c on fro ntth em at t ria l. Id. at _

__ , 12 9 S .Ct. at25 32 . 20Und er p la in -err or rev ie w, Cray

do es no t ci te an y

au th or it y in di cat in g t ha t an ex pe rt’s re li an ce o n a n o nl in e d at ab as e o r in te rn etsea rch to de te rm in e th e ge ol oc at io n o f IP ad dr es se s was un reas on ab le . Thu s, an y erro r inadm it ti ng th e ex pe rt’s t es ti m on y

wou ldno t b e p la in . Sim il arl y , eve n a ss um in g t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin co nduc ti ng th e b al an ci ng tes t re qu ire d b y Ru le 70 3, Cr ay

do es no t ci te any bi nd in g aut ho rit y

est ab li sh in g t ha t a d is tri ctco urt ab us es it s d is cret io n b y adm it ti ng ex pe rt t es ti m on y rel at in g t o t he ge ol oc at io n o f IP ad dr es se s b as edon se arch es of t he type rel ie d o n h ere. Th us , any suc h e rro r wou ldno t b e p la in . W it h reg ardto Cray’ s C on fro nt at io n C laus e arg um en t, as su m in g t ha t t he sea rchres ul ts qu al ify as “ st at em en ts ,” Cray cit es no au th or it y in di cat in g t ha t s uc h s ta te m en ts are

“ te st im on ia l” for Craw

fo rd pu rp os es ; t hu s, an y

su ch erro r wou ldno t b e p la in . Acco rd in gl y , each of C ray’ s ar gu m en ts fai ls at t he sec on d p ro ng of t he pl ai n- erro r an al y si s. VI. Rel y in g o n Old

Ch ie f v. Un it ed

St at es , 51 9 U.S. 1 72 , 11 7 S .Ct. 6 44 , 13 6 L.Ed.2 d 5 74 (19 97 ), Cray argu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin all owi ng th e publ ic at io n o f vi de os tak enfro m th e ch il d p orno gr ap hy webs it e’s se rv er t o t he jury be cau se he di d n otactua ll y po ss es s t ho se vi de os . As we d idwith re sp ectto th e d is tri ctco urt’s o th er ev id en ti ary ru li ng s, we 21rev ie w th is rul in g fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. We reve rs e th e d efen da nt ’s con vi ct io n

on ly if th e p ur

po rte dl y erro ne ou s ru li ng affe ct edth e d efen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts . Uni te d Sta tes v. Do dd

s , 34 7 F .3d89 3, 8 97 (11 thCir . 20 03 ). Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 4 01 pro vi de s tha t: “ Evi de nc e is rel ev an t i f: ( a) i t h as an y ten de nc y to m ak e a fac t m or e o r le ss pro babl e th anitwou ldbe witho utth e ev id en ce; an d (b ) th e fac t i s o f co ns eque nc e in de te rm in in g t he act io n.” Fed . R. Evi d. 4 01 (20 11 ). Rel ev an t ev id en ce i s ad m is si bl e u nl es s t he Co ns ti tu ti on , a fed eral st atut e, th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e, orot he r ru le s p res cri be d b y th e Supr em e Co urt p ro vi de ot he rwis e. Fed . R. Evi d. 4 02 (20 11 ). Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 4 03 pro vi de s t ha t:

“ The co urt m ay

ex cl ud e rel ev an t ev id en ce i f it s p ro ba ti ve va lu e is subs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh edby a dan ge r of on e o r m or e o f th e fo ll owi ng : u nf ai r pr ejud ic e, co nf us in g t he is su es , m is le ad in g t he jury, un du e d el ay , wast in g t im e, orne ed le ss ly pr es en ti ng cu m

ul at iv e ev id en ce.” Fe d. R. Ev id . 40 3 (2 01 1) . Howev er, we h av e cau ti on edth atRu le 40 3 is anex tra or di na ry

rem edy whi ch th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d i nv ok e sp ari ng ly, an d t he ba lanc e sh ou ldbe st ru ckinfav or of a dm is si bi li ty. W e h av e al so sai d t ha t i n re vi ewin g i ss ue s u nd er Ru le 40 3, we l oo k a t th e ev id en ce i n ali gh t m os t fa vo rab le to it s ad m is si on , m ax im iz in g i ts pr ob at iv e v al ue an d m in im iz in g i ts un du e p reju di ci al im pa ct . Uni te d Sta tes v. Al

fa ro -Mo nc ad

a , 60 7 F .3d72 0, 7 34 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on s o m it te d) , cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S .Ct. 1 60 4 (2 01 1) .

22In Dod ds , we affi rm edth e ad m is si on an d p ub li cat io n o f 66 im ag es of c hi ld po rn og rap hy ou t o f 3,4 00 su ch im ag es fou ndin th e d efen da nt ’s po ss es si on . Dod ds , 34 7 F .3d at89 9. We firs t n ot edth atth e ad m it te d i m ag es were n ot

“ ex tri ns ic to th e cri m e ch arg ed ,” bu t ra th er were a pa rt o f th e th ou sa nd s o f im ag es of ch il d p orno gr ap hy whic h Do dd s was co nv ic te d o f po ss es si ng . Id. at89 8. We he ldth atth e im ag es were p ro ba ti ve be cau se , in te r a li a , th ey ten de d t o s ho w th at Dod ds kn ew th e im ag es were ch il d p orno gr ap hy, the y sh owe d t ha t t he im ag es were ch il d p orno gr ap hy, andth ey in ferr edDod ds ’s in te ntto co ll ectth at po rn og rap hy. Id. at89 9. We als o n ot edth at“ on ly a very sm al l p ro po rti on of im ag es fou ndin th e d efen da nt ’s po ss es si on were s ho wn t o t he jury, ” an d tha t t he di st ric t co urt h adtak enpre cau ti on s t o p rev en t u nf ai r pr ejud ic e b y

ex cu si ng po te nt ia l ju ro rs du rin g vo ir di re who in di cat edth atth ey wou ldbe un ab le to ren de r a fai r ve rd ic t. Un de r th es e ci rcu m st an ces , we hel d t ha t i t was no t anab us e o f di sc ret io n fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o a dm itth e im ag es . Id. Mo re re cen tl y , in Alf

ar o-Mon ca da , we add res se d t he de fen da nt ’s con te nt io n th at , bec au se he ha d s ti pu la te d t ha t t he DVDs atis su e co nt ai ne d c hi ld po rn og rap hy, the di st ric t co urt erredby adm it ti ng fiv e st il l i m ag es co nt ai ne d o n th e DVDs. Alf

ar o-Mon ca da , 60 7 F .3dat 7 34 . W e h el d t ha t adm is si on of the im ag es serve d the va li d p ur po se of p ro vi ng th atth e DVDs ac tu al ly con ta in edch il d

23po rn og rap hy, eventh ou gh th e d efen da ntha d s o s ti pu la te d. W e al so st at edth atth e

im ag es ten de d t o s ho w th atth e d efen da nt“ kn ew he was i n p os se ss io n o f ch il d po rn og rap hy, a fact tha t h e d idno t s ti pu la te .” Inde te rm in in g t ha t an y po ss ib le pr ejud ic e d idno t o ut weig h t he pro ba ti ve va lu e, we no te d t ha t “ th e jury was on ly sh own a sm al l n um

be r of th e im ag es on th e DVDs– on ly 5 ou t o f 4,6 50 .” Id. In Old Ch ie f , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d tha t, wi threg ardto th e sp eci fic pr ob le m rai se d b y 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ) an d i ts pri or -co nv ic ti on ele m en t, ch arg es en co m pa ss in g apri orco nv ic ti on crea te d aris k o f un fai r pr ejud ic e to th e d efen da nt if e vi de nc e o f th e n am e o r na tu re o f th e p rio r of fen se was a dm it te d a t t ria l. Old Ch ie f , 51 9 U.S. at18 5, 1 17 S.Ct . at 6 52 . As a s ol ut io n t o t hi s p ro bl em , th e Co urt he ldth atth e g ov ern m en t m us t ac cep t a d efen da nt ’s st ip ul at io n t o t he factof a pr io r co nv ic ti on , rathe r th anin tro du ci ng su chpre jud ic ia l ev id en ce. Id. at 1 91 , 11 7 S.Ct . at 6 55 -5 6. Th e Co urt n ot edth atth is is th e g en eral rul e whe n ade fen da nt ’s fel on y -co nv ic t s ta tu s i s atis su e, bu t t ha t t he pro se cu to r’s ch oi ce wi ll ge ne ral ly su rv iv e a Ru le 40 3 i nqui ry when “ a d efen da ntsee ks to for ce the subs ti tu ti on of a n adm is si on forev id en ce cr eat in g aco he ren t n arra ti ve of h is th ou gh ts an d a ct io ns in pe rp etrat in g t he off

en se forwhi ch he is be in g t rie d.” Id. at 1 91 -9 2, 1 17 S.Ct . at65 5- 56 . As an in it ia l m at te r, Cray’ s re li an ce o n Old Ch ie f is un av ai li ng , as 24fel on y -co nv ic t s ta tu s was no t atis su e, no r do es Cray argu e th athi s s ti pu la ti on th at

th e v id eo s co ns ti tu te d c hi ldpo rn og rap hy rend eredth ei r ad m is si on cu m ul at iv e o r ov erl y pre jud ic ia l. The vi de os sh own to th e jury were rel ev an t b ecau se th ey te nd edto in fer C ray’ s i nt en t t o re cei ve an d a cces s wi th in te ntto vi ew ch il d po rn og rap hy, andpro ve d t ha t t he vi de os av ai labl e o n t he W eb si te were ac tu al ly ch il d p orno gr ap hy. Mo reo ve r, th e im ag es were n otex tri ns ic to th e cri m e, as th ey were t he im ag es Cray alle ge dl y rece iv edor a cces se d wi th in te ntto vi ew. In l ig ht of Dod ds an d Alf

ar o-Mon ca da , th e ad m is si on an d p ub li cat io n o f th e v id eo s was no t s o p reju di ci al as t o warran t the ex tra or di na ry rem edy of rul in g t he m in adm is si bl e u nd er Ru le 40 3. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n a dm it ti ng th e v id eo s an d a ll owi ng th e g ov ern m en t t o s ho w sam pl es of th e v id eo s t o t he jury. VII. Cray argu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n fa il in g t o g iv e h is reque st edjury in st ru ct io n t ha t o ut -o f-co urt s ta te m en ts m us t b e co rro bo rat ed . W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s re fu sa l t o g iv e a p ro po se d ju ry in st ru ct io n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. C hi ri no s , 11 2 F .3d10 89 , 11 01 (11 thCir . 19 97 ). A di st ric t co urt i s n otrequi redto gi ve a reque st edin stru ct io n i f itwou ld no t as si stth e jury in re so lv in g a n i ss ue . In d et erm in in g wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt 25ab us edit s d is cret io n, we co ns id er thr ee fa ct or s: (1) whet he r th e in st ru ct io n i s a

subs ta nt ia ll y

co rrec t s ta te m en t o f th e la w; (2 ) whe th er the jury in st ru ct io n g iv en ad dr es se d t he subs ta nc e o f th e reque st edin st ru ct io n; an d (3 ) whe th er the de fen da nt ’s abi li ty to p res en t aneffe ct iv e d efen se was s eri ou sl y im pa ire d b y th e co urt’s fa il ur e to gi ve th e reque st edin st ru ct io n. Id. A dis tri ctco urt n eedno t gr an t a r eque st edin st ru ct io n tha t wo ul d t en d t o c on fu se th e jury. Uni te d Sta tes v. Si lv erman , 74 5 F .2d13 86 , 13 99 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). In Uni te d Sta tes v. Rya n , 28 9 F .3d13 39 , 13 45 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ), th e de fen da ntreque st edanin st ru ct io n t ha t was a subs tant ia ll y co rrec t s ta te m en t o f th e la w of e nt rap m en t, an d t he Gov ern m en t d idno t ar gu e th atth e ch arg e th e co urt ga ve th e jury addres se d t he subs ta nc e o f th e reque st edin st ru ct io n. Th e d is tri ct co urt h adpe rm it te d Ry anto arg ue hi s en trapm en t d efen se to th e jury, allo wedhi m to cro ss -ex am in e witne ss es onth e is su e, an d i n i ts ch arg e to th e jury, pro vi de d t he jury opp ortu ni ti es to co ns id er the de fen se . In l ig htof t he op po rtu ni ti es forth e jury to co ns id er Ryan’s en trapm en t d efen se , we hel d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt’s fa il ur e to in cl ud e sp eci fic in st ru ct io ns on th e is su e d idno t s eri ou sl y im pa ir Ry an ’s pr es en ta ti on of t he de fen se , and , th us , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n. Id. The Supr em e Co urt h as he ldin a cas e d eci de d p rio r to Mir an da v. Ari zo na , 2638 4 U.S. 4 36 , 86 S.Ct . 16 02 , 16 L.Ed.2d69 4 (1 96 6) , th atanaccu se d m ay no t b e co nv ic te d b as edso le ly on h is own un co rro bo rat edco nf es si on . Smi th v. Uni te d St at es , 34 8 U.S. 1 47 , 15 2, 7 5 S .Ct. 1 94 , 19 7, 9 9 L.Ed . 19 2 (1 95 4) . W e h av e n ot ad dr es se d t he is su e o f whe th er the jury m us t b e in st ru ct edth atanou t-o f-co urt co nf es si on m us t b e co rro bo rat ed . As an in it ia l m at te r, acco rd in g t o C ray’ s re qu es te d i ns tru ct io n, p ro of be y on d a rea so nabl e d oubtth atth e al le ge d c rime was co m m it te d “ m ay , bu t d oe s n ot ne ces sa ril y

co ns ti tu te supp orti ng ev id en ce o f a d efen da nt ’s st at em en t.” Gi ve n t he li ke li ho odth atth is in st ru ct io n wo ul d c on fu se th e jury as to th e p ro of requi redto co nv ic t, the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g C ray’ s re qu es te d in st ru ct io n. As su m in g t ha t the in st ru ct io n was no t co nf us in g a ndwas a subs ta nt ia ll y

co rrec t s ta te m en t o f la w, th e co urt’s jury ch arg e was su ffi ci en t t o al lo w Cray to ch al le ng e h is all eg edou t-o f-co urt co nf es si on to fed eral ag en ts , and , th us , di d n otim

pa ir h is de fen se . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n re fu si ng to in st ru ctth e jury as Cra y reque st ed . VIII. Cray argu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinall owi ng th e Gov ern m en t’s su m m ary ch art

—wh ic h m at ch edfil en am es fou ndin hi s l ap to p re gi st ry with fi le s acce ss edon th e Webs it e b y a subs cri be r us in g C ray’ s n am e an d i nf orm at io n—to 27go to th e jury. Cray reli es on Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma lo l , 47 6 F .3d12 83 (11 th Cir .

20 07 ), in arg ui ng th ata di st ric t co urt’s ab us e o f di sc ret io n i n a ll owi ng th e jury to us e a s umm ary ch artdu rin g d el ib erat io ns warran ts rev ers al in a cl os e cas e. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng reg ard in g t he us e o f su m m ary ch art s fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ri ch ar ds on , 23 3 F .3d12 85 , 12 93 (11 th Ci r. 20 00 ). Und er Fe de ral Ru le of Ev id en ce 1 00 6, “ [t]he pro po ne ntm ay us e a su m m ary, ch art , or c al cu la ti on to pro ve th e co nt en t o f vo lu m in ou s wri ti ng s, reco rd in gs , or p ho to gr ap hs th atcan no t b e co nv en ie nt ly exam in edin co urt.” Fe d. R. Evi d. 1 00 6 (2 01 1) . W e h av e n ot edth atsu m m ary ch art s ar e to be us edwith cau ti on , andth atth e d is tri ctco urt m us t m ak e itcle ar t o t he jury th atth e u lt im at e de ci si on of wh atweig htto gi ve th e ev id en ce l ie s wi th th e jury. Rich ar ds on , 23 3 F.3 d a t 1 29 3- 94 . Whe re the de fen da ntha s the op po rtu ni ty to cr os s- ex am in e a wit ne ss reg ard in g adi sp ut edis su e an d t o p res en t h is own ve rs io n o f th e cas e, th e li ke li ho odof a ny errorin adm it ti ng a su m m ary ch artis di m in is he d. Id. at12 94 . W e h av e aff

irmed th e u se of asu m

m ary ch artwher e th e Gov ern m en t co m pl ie d wit h R ul e 1 00 6, t he de fen da ntha d a n o pp ortu ni ty to cr os s- ex am in e th e Gov ern m en t’s wi tn es se s ab ou t the ch art , th e d efen da ntus edth e ch artdu rin g t he tri al an d was no t p reju di ced , andth e d is tri ctco urt g av e a caut io na ry in st ru ct io n t o th e jury rega rd in g t he us e o f th e ch art . Uni te d Sta tes v. Hi ll , 64 3 F .3d80 7, 8 43 28(1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) . W e p res um e th atjuri es fol lo w th e d is tri ctco urt’s i ns tru ct io ns .

Id. InMal ol , th e d efen da ntap pe al edth e ad m is si on of asu m m ary ch art co m pi li ng da tafro m

th e d efen dant ’s fil es reg ard in g l os se s s uf fere d b y hu nd red s o f th e d efen da nt ’s cus to m ers . Mal ol , 47 6 F .3dat 1 29 0. Be cau se th e ev id en ce ag ai ns t t he de fen da ntwas o ve rwh el m in g a ndth e ch artm erel y rep eat edth e sa m e type o f ev id en ce tha t al read y ha d b een pre se nt ed , we con cl ud edth at , eve n i f th e di st ric t co urt erredin adm it ti ng th e ch art , th aterro r was ha rm le ss an d d idno t warra ntrev ers al . Id. at 1 29 1- 92 . As an in it ia l m at te r, Cray’ s re li an ce o n Mal ol is m is pl aced , as h e m is st at es th e h ol di ng of t ha t ca se . The i nf orm at io n s umm ari zedon th e ch artwas e st ab li sh ed by the Gov ern m en t’s ex pe rt’s t es ti m on y pri orto th e co urt’s ad m is si on of t he ch art , th e ch artsu m

m ari zedap pr ox im at el y

16 0 p ag es of v ol um in ou s an d t ech ni cal co m pu te r da ta , Cray ha d a m

pl e o pp ortu ni ty to cr os s- ex am in e th e ex pe rt r eg ard in g th e ch artan d i ts co nt en ts , andth e d is tri ctco urt g av e cau ti on ary in st ru ct io ns to th e jury regar di ng th e u se of t he ch art . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n a dm it ti ng th atev id en ce. AFFIR MED.

29