# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 21 91

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Dav id Evan Sta rr

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Ced ar Ra pi ds

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 26 , 20 15 Fi le d: Marc h 1 1, 2 01 5 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, BOW MAN, an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Dav id Eva n St arr ap pe a l s fro m th e am en de d jud gm en t th at th e Dis tri ct Co ur t en te red in hi s cr im in al cas e fo ll owi ng th e gr an t of rel ie f on on e o f th e cl ai m s

1

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.he rai se d in hi s 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 pr oc eed in g. In it ia ll y , we co nc lu de th at th e ap pe al

is ti m el y , as th e Dis tri ct Co ur t ex t e nd ed th e ti m e to fil e a no ti ce of ap pe al , ha vi ng fo un d ex cu sa bl e ne gl ect or go od cau se fo r St arr’s de la y in fil in g hi s no ti ce. See Fed

. R. App . P. 4(b )(4 ).

Afte r care fu l rev ie w, we fin d no erro r in th e de ci si on to va cat e St arr’s

co nv ic ti on s on two of th e po ss es si on -o f-ch il d- po rn og rap h y c o u n t s. The co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury at St arr’s tri al to co ns id er each co un t se pa rat el y an d ret ur n se pa rat e

ve rd ic ts , an d th e ev id en ce a s to th e rece ip t co un ts an d th e no n- m ul ti pl ic it ou s po ss es si on co un ts was st ro ng

. See Uni te d St at es v. Em ly, 74 7 F.3 d 97 4, 98 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (h ol di ng th at a m

ul ti pl ic it ou s in di ct m en t di d no t req ui re rem an d fo r a ne w tri al whe re th e m

ul ti pl ic it y di d no t p r e

ju d i c e t he de fen da nt ). The co ur t’s de ci si on to

va cat e t h e p o s se ss io n co nv ic ti on s an d le av e th e rece ip t co nv ic ti on s in ta ct was

su pp or te d by th e ev id en ce an d th e jury’ s ve rd ic t. See Uni te d St at es v. Mu hl en br uc h, 68 2 F.3 d 10 96 , 11 00 –0 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (h ol di ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by va cat in g a le ss er-i nc lu de d po ss es si on co nv ic ti on , r at he r th an a

rece ip t co nv ic ti on , be cau se th e de ci si on was “ ba se d on th e jury’ s ve rd ic t an d th e

ev id en ce in tro du ced at tri al ”). Fu rth er, th e co ur t di d no t err in de nyin g a res en te nc in g he ari ng

. Two of St arr’s po ss es si on co nv ic ti on s— an d th e 12 0- m on th co nc ur ren t

se nt en ces or ig in al ly im

po se d on th os e co nv ic ti on s— are sti ll va lid , an d th e co ur t m ad e cl ear at th e or ig in al se nt e n c i ng an d in th e § 22 55 pr oc eed in g it s in te nt to im po se a 72 0- m on th to ta l se nt en ce

. See Uni te d St at es v. Harri so n, 11 3 F.3 d 13 5, 13 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (s ta ti ng th at § 22 55 “ gi ve s di st ric t co ur ts br oa d an d fle xi bl e rem ed ia l au th or it y to res en te nc e a de fen da nt an d to co rrec t th e se nt en ce as ap pr op ria te ”); Ja m es v. Uni te d St at es , 4 76 F.2 d 93 6, 93 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 73 ) (p er cu ria m ) (“ [T]he cri ti cal is su e is whe th er th e se nt en ce im po se d [o n th e va li d co un t] m ig ht ha ve be en di ffer en t if th e

se nt en ci ng jud ge ha d kn own at ti m e of th e se nt en ci ng th at

. . . co nv ic ti on [o n an ot he r

co un t] was i nv al id .”).

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e Dis tri ct Co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ -2

-