# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 22 76

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

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.

Dus ti n L. Worth ey

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 Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

18 , 20 13

Fil ed : J un e 1 7, 2 01 3

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

A jury co nv ic te d Dus ti n W or th ey of on e co un t of rece iv in g ch il d po rn og rap hy

an d on e co un t of po ss es si ng ch il d po rn og rap hy, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2)

an d (a)( 4) (B). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced W or th ey to 18 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. 1

The Hon or ab le Ja m es M. Mo od y , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.Wo r t h e y ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r a

ch an ge of ve nu e, in de nyin g hi s m ot io ns fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al an d fo r a ne w tri al

,

an d in ad m it ti ng ev id en ce of ch il d po rn og rap hy ov er hi s of fer to st ip ul at e th eret o. He

al so ch al le ng es hi s s en te nc e. W e aff irm.

I. Back gr ou nd

We st at e th e fact s ag ai ns t W or th ey “ in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ju r y’s

ve rd ic t.” Uni te d St at es v. Trem us in i, 68 8 F.3 d 54 7, 55 0 n.2 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng

Uni te d S ta te s v . Ful le r, 55 7 F .3d 85 9, 8 62 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) ).

On Aug us t 26, 2010

, A rk an sa s St ate Po li ce (ASP) Age nt Dou g Est es co nd uc te d

an un de rco ve r in ve st ig at io n of an In te rn et Pro to co l (IP) ad dr es s th at he su sp ect ed of

tra di ng ch il d po rn og rap hy ov er Fro st W ire

, an on li ne pe er-t o- pe er fil e

- s h a rin g

pr og ram

. Est es pe rfo rm ed an un de rco ve r “ br ows e” of th e su sp ect IP ad dr es s, whi ch

rev eal ed fil es co nt ai ni ng k n o w n im ag es of ch il d po rn og rap hy be in g of fere d fo r

do wnl oa d. Est es vi ewed two of th e im ag es , co nf irmed th at th ey were ch il d

po rn og rap hy, an d tra ns ferr ed t h e c a s e to ASP Age nt Ch arl es Ro e, who was

ge og rap hi cal ly clo se r to th e su sp ect IP ad dr es s.

Ro e co nt act ed th e In te rn et se rv ic e pr ov id er of th e su sp ect I P a d dr es s an d

le arn ed th at th e su sp ect IP ad dr es s was reg is te red to Ch an dr a W or th ey at a res id en ce

on th e 2 00 bl oc k o f Bra de n S tre et in Mo ne tt e, Ark an sa s, an d t ha t t he em ai l ad dr es s

“ dm an 76 20 00 @g m ai l.co m ” was li st ed fo r th e acco un t. Ro e t h e n c o nd uc te d

su rv ei ll an ce of th e res id en ce, co nf irmed fo r hi m se lf th at th e su sp ec t im ag es were

in de ed ch il d p or no gr ap hy, and ob ta in ed a se arch warran t.

On th e m or ni ng of Nov em be r 4, 2 0 1 0

, R o e , al on g wit h ASP Age nt Ram ey

Lov an an d Hom el an d Secu rit y In ve st ig at i o n s Age nt Dery l Ro we, dr ov e to th e

W or th ey res id en ce to ex ecu te t h e se arch warra nt

. Upo n th ei r arri va l, th e ag en ts

-2

-di sc ov ered no on e t h e r e. As th e ag en ts were as cert ai ni ng W or th ey ’s pl ace of

em pl oym en t, th ey were to ld by ASP Age nt Mi ke Grim es th at W or th ey an d hi s th en

wife

, Ch an dr a (co ll ect iv el y th e W or th ey s)

, were wit h hi m at ASP Head qu art ers

. Ro e

to ld Grim es to di rect th e W or th ey s to ret u r n t o t h e i r res id en ce. Ro e, Lov an , an d

Ro we th en pr oc eed ed to th e W or th ey res id en ce. Upo n be in g so in st ru ct ed by Grim es , W or th ey sa id to Ch an dr a, “ W el l, y ou are pr ob ab ly go in g to wan t to di vo rce m e whe n

th is is al l ov er.” Grim es an d th e W or th e ys th en le ft se pa rat el y fo r th e W or th ey

res id en ce.

Upo n arri vi ng at th e res id en ce, W or th ey ap pr oa ch ed Ro we an d sai d, “ I kn ow why y ou ar e h e r e

. The se arch warra nt is fo r ch il d po rn og rap hy.” W or th ey th en

be cam e ex tre m el y di st rau gh t, ex pl ai ni ng hi s em ot io na l st at e to Ro we by sa y in g,

“ Bec au se I do wnl oa de d c hi ld po rn og rap hy.”

In si de th e res id en ce, Ro e fo un d a Tos hi ba la pt op co m pu te r, a pr ev ie w of whi ch

rev eal ed ch il d po rn og rap hy. Ro e se iz ed , am on g o th er t hi ng s, t he lap to p, fiv e ot he r

co m pu te rs , an d a wire le ss ro ut er fro m th e W or th ey res id en ce. Ro e to ok th e la pt op to

t h e H i

- Te ch Cri m e Uni t Co m pu te r Lab at th e Para go ul d Po li ce Dep art m en t fo r

Jo ne sb or o Pol ic e Dep art m en t Agen t Ernes t Ward t o a na lyze an d kep t th e fiv e ot he r

c o mp u te rs to an al y ze hi m se lf. Ro e’s week -lo ng ex am in at io n of th e fiv e ot he r

co m pu te rs rev eal ed no ch il d p or no gr ap hy on th em

.

W ard ’s fo ren si c ex am

ina tio n of the la pt op ’s ha rd dr iv e di sc lo se d a us er acco un t

c a l le d “ dm an ,” an d W ard le arn ed th at th e pa ss wor d “ Bad on e7 6” was req ui red t o

acce ss th e us er acco un t; th at th e us ern am e an d pa ss wor d were crea te d on Feb ru ary

27

, 20 10 ; an d th at th e em ai l ad dr es s as so ci at ed wit h th e la pt op was “ Dm an 76

so m et hi ng @g m ai l.” W ard al so di sc ov ered a us ern am e fo r Ark an sa s St at e Uni ve rs it y

on li ne th at co nt ai ne d t he na m e “ Dus ti n Wort he y .”

W ard fo un d th ree fil e-s ha rin g pr og ram s un de r th e “ dm an ” us e r acco un t:

Fro st W ire

, Luc kyW ire

, an d uTo rren t, al th ou gh Fro st W ire was pr ed om in an tl y us ed

.

-3

-Reg ard in g th e Fro st W ire acc o u n t , Ward de te rm in ed th at th e GUID nu m be r wit hi n 2

th e Fro st W ire pr op ert ie s fil e m at ch ed th e GUID nu m be r as so ci at ed wit h Est es ’s

un de rco ve r in ve st ig at io n. W ard fo un d fil es co nt ai ni ng ch il d po rn og rap hy in bo th th e

“ dm an ” Fro st W ire “ in co m pl et e” an d “ sa ve d” fol de rs

.

W or th ey was ch arg ed wit h rece iv in g a n d p o s se ss in g ch il d po rn og rap hy, in

vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2) an d (a)(4 )(B)

. Befo re tria l, W or th ey m ov ed fo r

a ch an ge of ve nu e , a s k i n g th at hi s tri al be he ld in Jo ne sb or o, wit hi n th e Jo ne sb or o

Div is io n of th e East ern Dis tri ct of Ar k a n s a s , i ns te ad of Lit tl e Ro ck

, wit hi n th e

W es te rn Div is io n o f th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d

th at co nc ern s ov er se cu rit y an d th e jury’ s ob se rv at io n of W or th ey in cu st od y

ou twei gh ed an y in co nv en ie nc e pl aced up on th e wit ne ss es an d W or th ey ’s fam il y an d

fri en ds an d t hu s d en ie d t he m ot io n.

The go ve rn m en t di sc lo se d pr io r to tri al th at it in te nd ed to pl ay up to fiv e

se co n d s o f e a ch of fo ur vi de os co nt ai ni ng ch il d po rn og rap hy fo un d in th e “ dm an ”

Fro st W ire “ in co m

pl et e” fo ld er, as well as up to fiv e se co nd s o f e a c h of fiv e vi de os

co nt ai ni ng ch il d p or no gr ap hy fou nd in th e “ dm an ” Fro st W ire “ sa ve d” fol de r. The 3

vi de o cl ip s were a “ rep res en ta ti ve sa m pl e of al l of th e ch il d po rn og rap hy” an d di d no t

in cl ud e “ th e wor st ” of th e vi de os

. W or th ey so ug ht to st i p u l a t e t h a t th e vi de os

co nt ai ne d ch il d po rn og rap hy an d th ereb y pr ecl ud e t h e i r in tro du ct io n at tri al

. The

di st ric t co ur t, th ou gh no t ha vi ng vi ewed th e vi de o cl ip s, de te rm in ed th at al th ou gh th e

At tri al

, Est es e x p l a i n e d t ha t a GUID is a nu m be r as si gn ed to an in di vi du al 2

co m pu te r by a fil e-s ha rin g pr og ram th at se rv es as “ th e id en ti fie r fo r th at on e

pa rti cu la r m ach in e o n t he ne two rk [.]”

The reco rd is un cl ear whe th er th e go ve rn m en t so ug ht to an d ul ti m at el y pl ay ed 3

t h r e e or fiv e se co nd s of each of th e fo ur vi de os or so m e co m bi na ti on th ereo f

. Th e

te st im on y at tri al

, ho wev er, ind ic at es th at th e go ve rn m en t pl ay ed fiv e se co nd s from

at lea st on e o f th e v id eo s an d u p t o fi ve sec on ds fro m th e o th er t hr ee v id eo s.

-4

-vi de o cl ip s were li ke ly of fen si ve , th e go ve rn m en t ret ai ne d th e ri g h t to pr es en t it s

ev id en ce. At t ria l, t he go ve rn m en t p ub li sh ed th e v id eo cli ps to th e jury.

W or th ey m ov ed fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al at th e cl os e of th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e

an d a ga in at t he clo se of al l of the ev id en ce. The di st ric t cou rt den ie d th e m ot io ns

. Fo ll owi ng th e jury’ s ve rd ic t, th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed W or th ey ’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t

of acq ui tt al an d a lt ern at iv el y for a ne w tri al

.

Fo ll owi ng W or th ey ’s co nv ic ti on , a pr es en te nc e rep o r t (PSR ) was pr ep ared

. A mo ng ot he r th in gs , th e PSR de ta il ed an in ve st ig at io n by th e Mo ne tt e Po li c e Dep art m en t th at be ga n aft er Ch an dr a W or th ey rep or te d, sh o r tl y aft er th e se arch

warra nt was ex ecu te d, th at he r da ug ht er an d so n— W or th ey ’s st ep da ug ht er an d

st ep so n— h a d t o ld he r th at W or th ey ha d be en m ol es ti ng th em

. Dur in g th e en su in g

in ve st ig at io n, W or th ey ’s st ep da ug ht er an d s te ps on rep or te d, in de ta il

, th at W or th ey

ha d s ex ua ll y

ab us ed th em

.

The PSR reco m

m en de d a ba se of

fen se le ve l of 22 an d an ad jus te d of fen se le ve l

of 38

, whi ch in cl ud ed a fiv e-l ev el en ha nc em en t fo r en ga gi ng in a pa tt ern of act iv it y

in vo lv in g th e se xu al ab us e or ex pl oi ta ti on of a m in or , se e U.S.S.G. § 2G2 .2(b )(5 ), as

well as a fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r po ss es si ng ch il d por nogr ap hy por

tr ay ing sa disti c

or m as oc hi st ic co nd uc t or ot he r de pi ct io ns of vi ol en ce, se e id

. § 2G2 .2(b )(4 ). Fro m

th is an d a cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y of I, th e PSR c a l c u l a t e d a Uni te d St at es

Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (Gu id el in es ) ran ge of 23 5- 29 3 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, whi ch

was red uc ed to 23 5- 24 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t ba se d on th e m ax im um te rm of

im pr is on m en t au th or iz ed by stat ut e.

At se nt en ci ng , W ard te st ifi ed he ha d fo un d on th e la pt op a p p r ox im at el y 20 0

vi de os of ch il d po rn og r a p h y to ta li ng be twee n 65 an d 75 ho ur s in le ng th , a s well as

20 4 im ag es of ch il d po rn og rap hy. Late r, Ro we te st ifi ed as to th e gr ap hi c an d vi ol en t

co nt en t o f th ree o f th e v id eo s co nt ai ni ng ch il d p or no gr ap hy fou nd on th e la pt op

.

-5

-Als o at sen te nc in g, th e di st ric t cou rt recei ve d a rep or t from Mo rri so n Cou nt y

So ci al Serv ic es , da te d M arch 16 , 20 12 , con cern in g Wort he y ’s st ep da ug ht er. In th e

rep or t, W or th ey ’s st ep da ug ht er st at ed th at W or th ey “ be ga n se xu al ly ab us in g he r pr io r

to he r th ird bi rth da y up un ti l Nov em be r of 20 10

, at ag e 13

, whe n he was arre st ed fo r

ch il d po rn og rap hy at th at ti m e.” The rep or t al so de ta il ed W or th ey ’s st ep da ug ht er’s

co nt in ui ng po st -ab us e st ru gg le s, whi ch in cl ud ed su ic id al id eat io n. The di st ric t co ur t

a l s o r ecei ve d a rep or t fro m th e Crai gh ead Co un ty Sh eri ff’s Dep art m en t, da te d J u l y 3, 20 11

, of an at te m

pt ed su ic id e by W or th ey ’s st ep so n. The di st ric t co ur t th en he ard

te st im on y fro m W ard reg ard in g th e de t a i l s of a co nv ers at io n be twee n W ard an d

Ch an dr a earl ie r th at da y , du rin g whi ch Ch an dr a to ld hi m th at W or th ey ’s st ep da ug ht er

was li vi ng at “ a gi rls ’ ho m e a n d a juv en il e m en ta l in st it ut io n, un de r 24 -h ou r

lo ck do wn,” and th at W or th ey ’s st ep so n “ was be in g trea te d for anx ie ty di so rd er du e

to se xu al ab us e.” The d is tri ct co ur t th en ad m it te d, ov er W or th ey ’s ob jecti on , vi de ot ap e st at em en ts by W or th ey ’s st ep da ug ht er an d s te ps on

.

The di st ric t co ur t fo un d by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at W or th ey ha d

en ga ge d in a pa tt ern of se xu al ab us e of hi s m in or st ep ch il dr en

. The di st ric t co ur t th en

de te rm in ed th at W or th ey ha d a ba se of fen se le ve l of 22 ; th at th e fiv e-l ev el pa tt ern -o fse xu al -ab us e en ha nc em en t, th e fo ur -le ve l de pi ct io n- of -v i o le nc e en ha nc em en t, an d

se ve ral ot he r en ha nc em en ts

, ap pl ie d; th at W or th ey ha d a to ta l of fen se le ve l of 38 ; an d

th at W or th ey ha d a cri m in al hi st or y cat eg o r y o f I

. Fro m th is

, th e di st ric t co ur t

cal cu la te d a Gui de li ne s ran ge of 23 5- 29 3 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, whi ch be cam e 23 5-

24 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t ba se d on th e ap pl ic ab le st at ut or y m ax im um

. The di st ric t

co ur t cr ed it ed W or th ey wit h “ so m e res erv at io ns ” it ha d re ga rd in g t he im po si ti on of

th e fiv e-l ev el pa tt ern -of

-s ex ua l- ab use en

ha nc em en t an d se nte nc ed him to 180 m on th s’

im pr is on m en t on th e rece ip t co un t an d to 12 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t on th e

po ss es si on co un t, wi th th e se nt en ces to run co nc ur ren tl y

.

-6

-II. Dis cu ss io n

A. Mot io n fo r a Ch an ge of Ve nu e

W or th ey arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r a ch an ge

of ve nu e. “ W e rev ie w a de ni al of a m ot io n fo r a ch an ge o f v en ue fo r ab us e of

di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v. St an ko

, 52 8 F.3 d 58 1, 5 8 4 ( 8 t h C ir. 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng

Uni te d S ta te s v . All ee, 2 99 F.3d 99 6, 9 99 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2) ).

The Si xt h Am en dm en t to th e Uni te d S ta te s C on st it ut io n “ req ui res th at a tr ia l

be he ld in th e st at e an d di st ric t whe re th e cri m e was co m m it te d.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d

St at es v. W ip f, 39 7 F.3 d 67 7, 68 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 )). “ Howev er, a de fen da nt do es no t

ha ve a rig ht to be tri ed in a pa rti cu la r di vi si on .” Id

. (q uo ti ng W ip f, 39 7 F.3 d at 68 6)

. Pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le of Cri mi n al Pro ced ur e 18

, th e di st ric t co ur t “ m us t se t th e pl ace of tri al wit hi n th e di st ric t wit h du e reg ard fo r th e co nv en ie nc e of th e de fen da nt

,

an y vi ct im

, an d th e wit ne ss es , an d th e pr om pt ad m in is tra ti on of jus ti ce.” “ A di st ric t
jud ge ha s br oa d di sc ret io n in de te rm in in g whe re wit hi n a di st ric t a tri al wil l be he ld

,

an d to ov ert ur n th e co ur t’s de ci si on th e de fen da nt m us t pr ov e ab us e of th at di sc ret io n

or pr ejud ic e.” St an ko

, 52 8 F.3 d at 58 4 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Dav is

, 78 5 F.2 d 61 0,

61 6 (8 th Cir . 19 86 )).

W or th ey arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t fail ed to affo rd su ffi ci en t wei gh t t o t he

co nv en ie nc e of th e wit ne ss es , hi s f am il y , an d hi s fri en ds

. He arg ue s th at th e

wit ne ss es , hi s fam il y , an d hi s fri en ds were fo rced to co m m ut e in ex ces s of two ho ur s

to at te nd hi s tri al an d th at th e go ve rn m en t’s pu rp or te d se cu rit y co nc ern s co ul d ha ve

be en ad eq ua te ly add res se d b y ad di ti on al sec ur it y

off ic ers

.

W or th ey po in ts to ou r de ci si on in St an ko

, in whi ch we ex pl ai ne d th at “ [w]hil e

th e di st ric t co ur t ret ai ns co ns id erab le di sc ret io n in de te rm in in g th e pl ace of tri al

, th at

di sc ret io n is co nt in ge nt up on th e co ur t’s co ns id erat io n of th e fact or s pr ov id ed in Ru le

-7

-18 whe n ru li ng on a p r o p e r mo t io n fo r ch an ge of ve nu e.” 52 8 F.3 d at 58 6. Bu t

un li ke St an ko

, whe re th ere was “ no ev id en ce in th e reco rd th at th e di st ric t co ur t

un de rto ok an y co ns id erat io n of th e co nv en ie nc e of th e de fen da nt or wit ne ss es or th e

pr om pt ad m in is tra ti on of jus ti ce[,]” id

. at 58 5, he re th e reco rd sh ows th at th e di st ric t

co ur t co ns id ered th e R ul e 18 fact or s an d de te rm in ed th at se cu rit y co nc ern s fro m

ho ld in g t h e tri al in Jo ne sb or o ou twei gh ed th e in co nv en ie nc e of ho ld in g th e tri al in

Lit tl e Ro ck

. We c on cl ud e 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 in so

ru li ng

. Mo reo ve r, W or th ey ha s sh own no pr ejud ic e ari si ng th eref ro m

. See U n it ed

St at es v. And ers on , 6 26 F.2 d 13 58 , 1 37 5 (8 t h Ci r. 19 80 ) (“ Abs en t an y pr ejud ic e to

t h e de fen se , th e de ci si on of th e tri al co ur t can no t be co ns id ered an ab us e of

di sc ret io n.” ), ci te d i n Sta nk o, 5 28 F.3d at 5 84

.

B. Su ffi ci en cy

of t he Evi de nc e

W or th ey arg u e s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io ns fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al an d m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al be cau se th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t

to co nv ic t hi m

. He arg ue s t h a t th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to pr ov e (1 ) th at he was th e

pe rs o n w ho acce ss ed th e In te rn et an d do wnl oa de d th e ch il d po rn og rap hy fo un d on

th e la pt op ; an d (2 ) th at th e ch il d po rn og r a ph y was sa ve d in th e la pt op ’s pe rm an en t

m em or y as o pp os ed to tem

po rary cach e.

W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of th e m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of

acq ui tt al

, bu t “ rev ie w a ch al le ng e to th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce de fere nt ia ll y an d

affi rm if an y rat io na l tri er of fact co ul d ha ve fo un d th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of th e cri m e

be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Uni te d St at es v

. V e g a , 6 76 F.3 d 70 8, 72 1 (8 th Ci r.

20 12 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Aug us ti ne , 66 3 F.3 d 36 7, 37 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 )). W e

r e v i e w t h e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of th e m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al fo r an ab us e o f

di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Maybee, 68 7 F.3 d 10 26

, 10 32 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). “ Alt ho ug h

th e di st ric t co ur t m ay weig h th e ev id en ce an d di sb el ie ve wit ne ss es , th e ve rd ic t m us t

be al lo wed to st an d ‘[u]nle ss th e d i s t r i ct co ur t ul ti m at el y de te rm in es th at a

-8

-m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce wil l oc cu r.’” Id

. (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es

v. Ca m po s, 3 06 F.3d 57 7, 5 79 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2) ).

As al read y no te d, W or th ey was co nv ic te d of rece iv in g an d po ss es si ng ch il d

po rn og rap hy, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2) an d (a)( 4) (B). “ The co nv ic ti on s

fo r rece ip t an d po ss es si on of ch il d p o r n o g r a p hy tu rn on es se nt ia ll y th e sa m e

req ui rem en ts an d ev id en ce, an d th us w i l l be di sc us se d to ge th er.” Uni te d St at es v.

W hi te

, 50 6 F.3 d 63 5, 64 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). “ The el em en ts of rece ip t un de r 18 U.S.C.

§ 22 52 (a)( 2) r e q u i r e t he de fen da nt to kn owi ng ly rece iv e an it em of ch il d

po rn og rap hy, an d th e it em to be tra ns po rte d in in te rs ta te or fo rei gn co m m erce .” Id

.

“ The el em en ts of po ss es si on un de r 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 4) (B) req ui re th e de fen da nt

to kn owi ng ly po ss es s an it em of ch il d po rn og rap hy, an d th e it em to be tra ns po rte d in

in te rs ta te or fo rei gn co m m erce by an y m ea n s

. ” Id

. W e co ns tru e W or th ey ’s

ch al le ng es as di sp ut in g whe th er he was th e on e who do w n l o a d e d th e ch il d

po rn og rap hy an d if so , whe th er he “ rece iv ed ” or “ po ss es se d” th e ch il d po rn og rap hy.

As reco un te d earl ie r, a fo ren si c ex am in at io n of th e l a p t o p rev eal ed a us er

acco un t cal le d “ dm an ” wit h th e pa ss wor d “ Bad on e7 6,” se ve ral fil e-s ha rin g pr og ram s

u n d e r th e “ dm an ” us er acco un t, an em ai l ad dr es s as so ci at ed wit h th e la pt op o f

“ Dm an 76 so m et hi ng @g m ai l,” an d a us ern am e fo r Ark an sa s St at e Uni ve rs it y on li ne

th at co nt ai ne d th e na m e “ Dus ti n W or th ey .” In ad di ti on to th e ev id en ce ob ta in ed fro m

th e la pt op , th e go ve r n m en t al so in tro du ced W or th ey ’s in cu lp at or y st at em en ts

. W e

co nc lu de th at th e ev id en ce fo un d on th e la pt op , co ns id ered to ge th er wit h W or th ey ’s

st at em en ts

, was su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h th at W or th ey was th e pe rs on who do wnl oa de d

th e ch il d p or no gr ap hy fou nd on th e la pt op in hi s re si de nc e.

W e al so ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at th e ev id en c e was su ffi ci en t to

es ta bl is h th at th e fil es co nt ai ni ng ch ild por nogr aphy were kn owi ng ly do wnl oa de d an d

sa ve d in th e la pt op ’s pe rm an en t m em or y

. Unl ik e Uni te d St at es v. St ul oc k, 30 8 F.3 d

92 2, 92 5 (8t h Cir. 2 00 2) , in whi ch we no te d t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t h ad acq ui tt ed th e

-9

-de fen da nt on th e ch arg e of kn owi ng ly po ss es si ng ch il d po rn og rap hy be cau se “ [t]he

p o s s e s s i o n ch arg e sp eci fie d on ly th e im ag es fo un d in th e br ows er cach e[,]” th e

ev id en ce ad du ced at W or th ey ’s tri al es ta bl is he d th at th e ch il d po rn og rap hy fo un d on

th e la pt op was do wnl oa de d th ro ug h pe er-t o- pe er fil e-s ha rin g pr og ram s on to th e

la pt op

. Age nt W ard ex pl ai ne d th at he fo un d ch il d p o r no gr ap hy in fil es wit hi n th e

Fro st W ire “ in co m

pl et e” an d “ sa ve d” fo ld ers on th e la pt op an d th at th e fil es

co nt ai ni ng th e ch il d po rn og rap hy were se arch e d f o r a n d do wnl oa de d by th e us er.

Thi s te st im on y was co ns is te nt wit h Age nt Est es ’s te st im on y reg ard in g th e op erat io n

of fil e-s ha rin g pr og ram s su ch as Fro st W ire

. See Uni te d St at es v. Koc h, 62 5 F.3 d 47 0,

4 78 -7 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (h ol di ng th at im ag es “ fo un d on [th e de fen da nt ’s] c o mp u t e r

an d fla sh dr iv e in fil es th at a us er ha d to crea te m an ua ll y [,]” al on g wit h “ ev id en ce th at

a n u mb e r of th e im ag es ha d be en m ov ed an d ot he rs de le te d[ ,] ” were “ su ffi ci en t t o

s u p p or t th e fin di ng th at [th e de fen da nt ] kn owi ng ly po ss es se d th e im ag es of ch il d

po rn og rap hy” (fo ot no te om it te d) ). Acco rd in gl y, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in

de nyin g Wort he y ’s m ot io ns for jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al an d m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l.

C. Sti pu la ti on

W or th ey arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in pe rm it ti n g th e go ve rn m en t to
pl ay th e vi de o cl ip s co nt ai ni ng ch il d po rn og rap hy at tri al de sp it e hi s wil li ng ne ss to

st ip ul at e th at th ey co nt ai ne d ch il d po rn og rap hy. He arg u es (1 ) th at in li gh t of th is

st ip ul at io n, th e vi de o cl ip s sh ou ld ha ve b e en ex cl ud ed un de r Old Ch ie f v. Uni te d

St at es , 51 9 U.S. 17 2 (1 99 7) ; (2 ) th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to co nd uc t a Fed eral Ru le

of Evi de nc e 40 3 ba la nc in g te st in de ci di ng whe th er to ad m it th e v i d e o c l ip s or to

acce pt hi s st ip ul at io n as a su bs ti tu te th eref or ; an d (3 ) th at th e di st ric t co ur t ot he rwis e

erre d in ad m it ti ng th e vi de o cli ps . W e rev ie w th e d is tri ct co ur t’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng

fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. U n it ed St at es v. Sewel l, 45 7 F.3 d 84 1, 84 3 (8 th Ci r.

20 06 ).

-1 0-W e co nc lu de fir st th at W or th ey ’s Old Ch ie f arg um en t is fo recl os ed by Uni te d

St at es v. McC ou rt, 46 8 F.3 d 10 88

, 10 91 -9 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ), in whi ch we he ld th at Old

Ch ie f di d no t pr oh ib it pu bl ic at io n o f ch il d p or no gr ap hy vid eo cli ps to th e jury ov er

th e de fen da nt ’s o ffer to st ip ul at e to th ei r co nt en t. See al so Sewel l, 45 7 F.3 d at 84 4
(ex pl ai ni ng th at “ th e go ve rn m en t is en ti tl ed to pr ov e it s cas e by ev id en ce of it s own

ch oi ce an d is no t req ui red to acce pt th e of fer [to st ip ul at e]”); Uni te d St at es v. Bec ht

, 26 7 F.3 d 76 7, 77 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (s im il ar). To th e ex te nt th at W or th ey ’s arg um en t

co ns ti tu te s a ch al le ng e to th e va li di ty or rat io na le of McC ou rt an d ou r ot he r

pr eced en t, we ne ces sa ril y m us t re ject i t, fo r “ [i]t is a card in al ru le in ou r ci rcu it th at

on e pa ne l is bo un d by t he de ci si on of a pr io r pa ne l.” Un it ed Sta te s v . Bet ch er, 5 34

F.3 d 82 0, 82 3- 24 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng Owsl ey v. Lue bb ers , 28 1 F.3 d 68 7

, 6 9 0
(8 th Cir . 20 02 )).

The reco rd in di cat es th at th e di st ric t co ur t co nd uc te d a Ru le 40 3 an al y si s whe n

co ns id er i n g th e ad m is si bi li ty of th e vi de o cl ip s. Befo re tri al

, W or th ey ’s co un se l

arg ue d th at th e vi de o cl ip s sh ou ld be ex cl ud ed in acco rd an ce wit h hi s st ip ul at io n

be cau se th ey wou ld “ bi as an d p reju di ce an d i nf la m e [t he ] jury agai ns t [Wort he y ]. ”

The go ve rn m en t res po nd ed th at it in te nd ed to pl ay on ly se le ct fiv e-s eco nd vi de o cl ip s

an d th at it ha d ch os en cl ip s as “ a rep res en ta ti ve sa m pl e of al l of th e ch il d

po rn og rap hy” wit ho ut in cl ud in g “ th e wor st ” of th e vi de os

. Giv en th e pa rti es ’ st at ed

p os it io ns , “ [w]e pr es um e th at th e di st ric t co ur t weig he d th is ev id en ce pu rs ua nt to

Ru le 40 3” an d co nc lu de d th at th e go ve rn m en t sh ou ld be pe rm it te d to pl ay th e vi de o

cl ip s. Sm it h v. Ten et Heal th syste m SL, In c., 43 6 F.3 d 87 9, 88 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ), ci te d

in McC ou rt, 4 68 F.3d at 1 09 2.

Mo reo ve r, w e d o no t ag ree wit h W or th ey th at th e vi de o cl ip s un fai rly

pr ejud ic ed hi m . Our co ur t co ns id ered an d re jecte d a si m il ar ar gu m en t i n M cCo ur t:

The on ly arg um en t th at McC ou rt of fers in su pp or t of hi s un fai r

pr ejud ic e cl ai m is th at vi de os of ch il d po rn og rap hy, m or e so th an st il l

-1 1-im ag es , aro us e em ot io ns th at a jury is un ab le to se t as id e in reac hi ng it s

ve rd ic t. W hi le th e vi de os were no do ub t un fav or ab le to McC ou rt, “ th e fact rem ai ns th at [Ru le 40 3] do es no t of fer pro te ct io n aga in st ev id en ce th at is m erel y pr ejud ic ia l in th e se ns e of be in g d e t r i ment al to a pa rty’ s

cas e. The ru le pr ot ect s ag ai ns t ev id en ce th at is un fa ir ly pr ejud ic ia l.”

Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 46 3 F.3 d 80 3, 80 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n om it te d) (em

ph as i s ad de d)

. McC ou rt m ay be co rrec t th at
vi de os are qu al it at iv el y di ffer en t fro m st il l im ag es , bu t it is al so tru e th at

a vi de o is no th in g m or e th an a se rie s of st il l im ag es s h own in rap id

su cces si on to crea te th e il lu si on of m ot io n. Onl y se ve n vi de os ou t of th e

m or e th an 17 5 fo un d on McC ou rt’s co mp u t e r were sh own to th e jury

an d each fo r on ly th ree se co nd s. Bec au se an y il lu si on of m ot io n crea te d by a mer e t h r e e se co nd s of vi de o is su rel y m in im al

, we se e li tt le

qu al it at iv e di ffer en ce be twee n th e li m it ed pu bl ic at io n of th es e se ve n vi de os an d th e pu bl ic at io n of st il l im ag es fo r lo ng er du rat io ns , as up he ld

in ou r pr io r cas es

. See Sewel l, 45 7 F.3 d at 84 4 (rev ers in g ex cl us io n of

m or e th a n 6 0 s eco nd s of st il l im ag es ); Bec ht

, 26 7 F.3 d at 77 4 (u ph ol di ng 39 im ag es di sp la y ed an d ha rd co pi es di st rib ut ed to juro rs ).

Mo reo ve r, un li ke in Bec ht an d Sewel l, whi ch de al t wit h th e de fen da nt ’s

co ll e c t i o n of st il l im ag es , we se e no reas on he re th at th e Gov ern m en t

m us t li m it it s ev id en ce to st il l im ag es be cau se McC ou rt di d no t so li m it

hi s co ll ect io n.

Giv en th e li m it ed nu m

be r of vi de os an d th ei r m in i mal d u r at io n,

we do no t fin d th at th ei r pu bl ic at io n to th e jury co ns ti tu te s un fai r

pr ejud ic e.

McC ou rt, 46 8 F.3 d at 10 92 -9 3. Here, th e go ve rn m e n t pu bl is he d on ly se le ct fiv ese co nd vi de o cl ip s to th e jury as a rep res en ta ti ve sa m ple of the less -th an -wo rs t vi de os

. Alt ho ug h it m ig ht ha ve be en a be tt er co ur se fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to ha v e e x am in ed

th e vi de o cl ip s fo r it se lf pr io r to de te rm in in g th ei r ad m is si bi li ty, se e Uni te d St at es v.

Cu nn in gh am , 69 4 F .3d 37 2, 38 6- 87 (3 d C ir. 2 01 2) , un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces of t hi s

cas e we fin d no un fai r pr ejud ic e in th e pu bl ic at io n o f t h e v i de o cl ip s to th e jury.

Acco rd in gl y , we ne ed no t co ns id er or weig h th e pr ob at iv e va lu e of th e vi de o cl ip s or

-1 2-t h e p o te nt ia l ad eq ua cy of W or th ey ’s st ip ul at io n as a su bs ti tu ti on th eref or

. E.g

. , McC ou rt, 4 68 F.3d at 1 09 3; Bet ch er, 5 34 F.3d at 8 25

.

D. Sent en ce

W or th ey arg ue s th at im

po si ti on of th e fiv e-l ev el en ha nc em en t fo r en ga gi ng in

a pa tt ern of se xu al ab us e of a m in or vi ol at ed hi s du e pr oc es s rig ht s ( 1 ) b e c a u s e th e

en ha nc em en t was no t su pp or te d b y cle ar an d co nv in ci ng ev id en ce no twi th st an di ng

th e fact th at th e en ha nc em en t in crea se d hi s po te nt ia l se nt en ce by up to 10 0 ad di ti on al

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t, an d (2 ) be cau se th e e n h a n c e m en t was ba se d la rg el y on th e

vi de ot ap e st at em en ts of hi s m in or st ep ch il dr en

. He al so arg ue s th at hi s 18 0- m on th 4

se nt en ce is un reas on ab le (1 ) be c a u s e h e p res en te d ev id en ce th at he su ffer s fro m Asp e r ge r’s Sy nd ro m e, an d (2 ) be cau se hi s se nt en ce is gr eat er th an th os e of ot he r

of fen de rs c o n vi ct ed of si m il ar y et m or e he in ou s co nd uc t. W e rev ie w de no vo

W or th ey ’s du e pr oc es s arg um en t, se e Uni te d St at es v. Lee, 62 5 F.3 d 10 30

, 10 34 (8 th

Ci r. 20 10 ), an d rev ie w th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of th e se nt en ce fo r an ab us e of

di sc ret io n, s ee Un it ed Sta te s v . Spe nc er, 7 00 F.3d 31 7, 3 22 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.

“ W e ha ve reject ed th e as se rti on th at ‘due pr oc es s req ui re[s ] th e go ve rn m en t to

pr ov e by cl ear an d co nv in ci ng ev id en ce fact s th at pr od uc e[] so su bs ta nt ia l an in crea se

in [a de fen da nt ’s] [G]uid el in es ran ge .’ ” Uni te d Stat es v. W al le r, 68 9 F.3d 94 7, 95 8
(8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Vil la real -Am ari ll as , 56 2 F.3 d 89 2, 89 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )); se e al so Lee, 62 5 F.3 d at 10 34 -3 5 (ex pl ai ni ng th at

“ we [h av e] de ci de d sq ua rel y th at d u e p r o c e ss ne ve r req ui res ap pl y in g m or e th an a

pr ep on de ran ce-o f-t he -ev id en ce st an da rd fo r fin di ng se nt en ci ng fact s, ev en whe re th e

f a c t

- fin di ng ha s an ex tre m el y di sp ro po rti on at e im pa ct on th e de fen da nt ’s ad vi s o r y

W or th ey o r i gi na ll y al so ch al le ng ed th e im po si ti on of th e fiv e-l ev el 4

en ha nc em en t on th e ba si s th at he was faci ng ch arg es in st a t e co ur t fo r th e sa m e

un de rlyin g c on du ct . In h is rep ly brie f, ho wev er, Worth ey st at es th at th e st at e co ur t
ch arg es ha ve si nc e b een no ll e p ro ss ed , th ereb y ren de rin g h is arg um en t m oo t.

-1 3-gu id el in es ran g e ” ( i n te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d ci ta ti on om it te d) ). Acco rd in gl y ,

W or th ey ’s arg um en t th at th e di st ric t co ur t was req ui red to ap pl y th e cl ear- an dco nv in ci ng -ev id en ce s ta nd ard fai ls

.

The reco rd su pp or ts th e d is tri ct co ur t’s fin di ng s re ga rd in g Wort he y ’s pat te rn

of se xu al ly ab us in g hi s m in or st ep ch il dr en

. At s en te nc in g, th e go ve rn m en t of fere d

vi de ot ap e st at em en ts by W or th ey ’s st ep ch il dr e n r e ga rd in g th ei r hi st or y of be in g

s e x u a l ly ab us ed by W or th ey

. The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th e st at em en ts su ffi ci e n t l y

rel ia bl e to warra nt th ei r co ns id erat io n. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Bas ti an , 60 3 F .3d 46 0,

46 6- 67 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (n o ab us e of di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng th ree vi de o in te rv ie ws of

m in or vi ct im s of se xu al ab us e fo un d by th e co ur t to be su ffi ci en tl y rel ia bl e). The

di st ric t co ur t al so co ns id ered two writ te n rep or ts co nc ern in g W or th ey ’s st ep ch il dr en

an d th e ps y ch ol og ic al ha rm th ey su ffer ed f ro m hi s se xu al ab us e, as well as W ard ’s

te st im on y reg ard in g hi s co nv ers at io n earl ie r th at da y wit h Ch an dr a, who se rep or ts

reg ard in g th e ch il dr en were co ns is te nt wit h th e writ te n rep o r t s an d th e vi de ot ap e

st at em en ts

. Bas ed on th is ev id en ce, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in ap pl y in g th e fiv ele ve l en ha nc em en t.

Nor di d th e di st ric t co ur t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in se nt e n c in g W or th ey to 18 0

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t, w hic h re pr es en te d a subs ta ntial do wnwar d va ria nc e be lo w th e

bo tt om of th e 23 5- 24 0 m on th s Gui d e l i n e s ran ge

. “ [W] he re a di st ric t co ur t ha s

se nt en ced a de fen da nt be lo w th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge , it is ne arl y in co nc ei va bl e

th at th e co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in no t va ry in g do wnwar d st il l fu rth er.” Sp en cer,

70 0 F.3 d at 32 2 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Mo or e, 58 1 F.3 d 68 1, 68 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )
(p er cu ria m )). Giv en th e nu m be r of im ag es an d vi de os fo un d on th e la pt op , th e na tu re

of th e im ag es an d vi de os , an d th e ev id en ce reg ard in g W or th ey ’s pa t t e r n o f s ex ua l

ab us e, th e di s t r ic t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in refu si ng to va ry ev en fu rth er

do wnwar d.

-1 4-III. Co nc lu si on

The co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e are affi rm ed

.

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g.

I co nc ur in th is co ur t’s de ci si on affi rm in g W or th ey ’s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce

in al l resp ect s. I writ e se pa rat el y , ho wev er, t o c om m en t o n t he de ni al of Wort he y ’s

m ot io n th at hi s tri al be mo v e d f ro m Lit tl e Ro ck to Jo ne sb or o, hi s ho m e an d th e

lo cat io n of th e ev en ts gi vi ng ris e to hi s pr os ecu ti on , an d to affi rm th at “ it is th e pu bl ic

po li cy of th is Co un try th at on e m us t no t arb it rari ly be se nt

, wit ho ut hi s co ns en t, in to

a s tra ng e lo cal it y to de fen d hi m se lf ag ai ns t th e po werfu l pr os ecu to ria l res ou rces o f

th e G o v e r n men t.” See Uni te d St at es v. St an ko

, 52 8 F.3 d 58 1, 58 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )
(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

W hi le I ag ree th at W or th ey ’s cas e is di st in gu is ha bl e fro m St an ko an d th at th e

di st r i c t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g a ch an ge of ve nu e in th is cas e,

I fin d su sp ect th e go ve rn m en t’s rel ia nc e in res is ti ng W or th ey ’s m ot io n on th e 5

po ss ib il it y th at

, du e to th e ab se nc e of se cu red ha ll way s in th e Jo ne sb or o co ur th ou se , th e jury wou ld vi ew W or th ey in cu st od y , im pl y in g th at tri al in th e m or e st at e-o f-t he

art Lit tl e Ro ck co ur th ou se wou ld no t p res en t t hi s ri sk

.

Fi rs t, it is no t cl ear fro m th e reco rd th at a juro r wou ld ne ve r se e a de fen da nt in

cu st od y whe n tri ed in th e Lit tl e Ro ck co ur th ou se

. Seco nd

, i t is no t a gi ve n th at

pr ejud ic e to a de fen da nt res ul ts fro m a juro r se ei ng th e d efen da nt in cu st od y be fo re

or du rin g a cri m in al tri al

. See Uni te d St at es v. Ro bi ns on , 64 5 F.2 d 61 6, 61 7 (8 th Ci r.

It is di ffi cu lt to di sc ern fro m th e di st ric t co ur t’s Sep te m be r 7

, 20 11 or de r or 5 Sep te m be r 21

, 20 11 or de r whe th er it rel ie d on th e go ve rn m en t’s ex pl an at io n th at th e jury wou ld vi ew W or th ey in cu st od y as a gr ou nd s fo r de nyin g th e m ot io n to tra ns fer.

-1 5-19 81 ) (p er cu ria m ) (h ol di ng “ br ie f an d in ad ve rte nt ex po su re of defen da nt s to juro rs

is no t in he ren tl y pr ejud ic ia l” an d th at d e f e n da nt be ars bu rd en of “ affi rm at iv el y

de m on st rat in g pre

jud ic e”). Fu rth er, th e st an da rd jury in st ru ct io ns —ca ut io ni ng th at

th e de fen da nt is pr es um ed in no cen t un le ss an d u nt il pr ov en gu il ty be y on d a

reas on ab le do ub t, an d th at an in di ct m en t is si m pl y an accu sa ti on —m in i mi z e th e

po te nt ia l preju di ce aris in g from su ch an ob se rv at io n. See Eig ht h Ci rcu it Man ua l of

Mo de l Ju ry In st ru ct io ns : Cri m in al §§ 1.0 1, 3 .05 , 3.0 6 (2 01 1) . Thir d, i f as he re, th e

de fen da nt is wil li ng to ris k be in g se en by th e jury whi le in cu st od y , th en in m y vi ew,

th e co ur t sh ou ld no t co ns id er su ch a po ss ib i l i t y a s a fact or su pp or ti ng th e de ni al of

a req ue st ed ch an ge of v en ue or i n c on du ct in g i ts Ru le 18 an al y si s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 6-