# 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- 10 16

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

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.

Mi ch ael Man ni ng

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 M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 27 , 20 13
Fil ed : J an ua ry

3, 2 01 4

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, MELLOY, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e.

A jury co nv ic te d Mi ch ael Man ni ng of on e co un t o f r e c ei pt of ch il d

po rn og rap hy an d on e co un t of po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy in vi ol at io n of 18

U.S.C. §§ 22 52 A(a)(2 ) an d (a)( 5) (B), res pe ct iv el y

. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m 1

The Hon or ab le Caro l E. Ja ck so n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.to th e st at ut or y m ax im um for each off

en se : 2 40 m on th s fo r rece ip t an d 12 0 m on th s

fo r po ss es si on

. The co ur t ord ered th e se nt en ces to run co ns ecu ti ve ly, res ul ti ng in a

to ta l pr is on te rm of 36 0 m on th s. The co ur t al so im po se d a li fet im e te rm of su pe rv is ed

rel eas e.

Man ni ng pr es en ts se ve ral arg um en ts o n a p p eal

. Fi rs t, he ch al le ng es th e

su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce at tria l, clai m in g th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to pr ov e be y on d

a reas on ab le do ub t th at he kn owi ng ly po ss es se d or rece iv ed ch il d po rn og rap hy.

Seco nd

, he co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ad m it ti ng on li ne co nv ers at io ns he ha d

wit h ot he r pe rs on s d is cu ss in g t he ex ch an ge of ch il d po rn og rap hy. Thi rd

, he arg ue s

hi s co nv ic ti on s fo r bo th rece ip t an d po ss es si on vi ol at e hi s Fi fth Am en dm en t rig ht to

be free fro m do ub le jeop ard y

. Fo ur th

, Man ni ng al le ge s th e ul ti m at e se n t e n c e th e
di st ric t co ur t i m

po se d was su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . W e aff

irm.

I. Back gr ou nd

W e di sc us s th e fact s of th is cas e "'i n th e l i gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e jury's

ve rd ic t.'" Uni te d St at es v. W or th e y, 7 1 6 F

. 3 d 11 07

, 11 09 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (q uo ti ng
Uni te d S ta te s v . Trem

us in i, 6 88 F.3d 54 7, 5 50 n.2 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2) ).

In Ju ly 20 10

, Mi ss ou ri la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers us ed an on li ne "p eer- to -p eer"

fil e-s ha rin g pro gr am to do wnl oa d th ree im ag es an d on e vi de o of ch il d po rn og rap hy

fro m an In te rn et Pro to co l ("I P") ad dr es s in Su ll iv an , Mi ss ou ri. The IP ad dr es s

or ig in at ed fro m an acco un t be lo ng in g to Mi ch ael Man ni ng

. La w e nf or cem en t

su bs eq ue nt ly ex ecu te d a se arch w a rran t at Man ni ng 's res id en ce on Sep te m be r 25

, 20 10

. Man ni ng was th e on ly pe rs on at th e ho m e whe n of fic ers arri ve d, an d he de ni ed

do wnl oa di ng or ha vi ng ch il d po rn og rap hy in hi s po ss es si o n. Man ni ng ad m it te d

du rin g th e se arch th at he own ed a la pt op , th at it was pa ss wor d- pr ot ect ed

, th at hi s
lo gi n us ern am e t o acce ss th e co m pu te r was "m em 65 9," an d th at he us ed a se cu red

in te rn et co nn ect io n. He su gg es te d in res po ns e to qu es ti on in g th at th ree of hi s fri en ds

-2

-co ul d ha ve acce ss ed hi s co m pu te r an d do wnl oa de d th e i mag e s

. Des pi te go in g

th ro ug h a co nt en ti ou s di vo rce with hi s wife at the ti m e, Man ni ng di d no t su gg es t to

an y on e du rin g th e se arch th at sh e o r so m eo ne sh e k ne w m ay ha ve be en res po ns ib le

fo r pu tt in g t he ch il d p or no gr ap hy on hi s co m pu te r.

The se arch of Man ni ng 's res id en ce reco ve red

, am on g ot he r th in gs , t hr ee

co m pa ct di sc s an d a la pt op co m pu te r. In it ia ll y , th e ev id en ce lo g fo r th e se arch

reco rd ed on ly two di sc s fo un d in se pa rat e pl as ti c cas es

. An of fic er in vo lv ed wit h th e

in ve st ig at io n te st ifi e d a t tri al th at a th ird di sc (th e "M em or ex di sc ") was lo cat ed

be hi nd an ot he r di sc in on e of th e pl as ti c cas es

. Befo re le av in g Man ni ng 's ho m e, on e

of th e of fic ers se al ed th e pl as ti c cas es in an en ve lo pe an d pl aced th em in th e of fic er's

lo ck ed of fic e. W he n th e en ve lo pe was su bs eq ue nt ly tra ns ferr ed to a fo ren si cs la b an d

un se al ed to in ve st ig at e th e di sc s' co nt en ts

, the fo ren si cs ex am in er fo un d th e Mem or ex
di sc

. The Mem or ex di sc co nt ai ne d 14 vi de os of ch il d po rn og rap hy an d was ad de d to

th e i n v e nt or y li st of it em s se iz ed fro m Man ni ng 's ho m e. The de te ct iv e who

co nd uc te d th e fo ren si cs ex am in at io n di d no t fin d an y in di cat io n th at th e co nt en ts of

th e Me m or ex di sc ha d b een alt ered aft er t he ti m e o f th e se arch

.

Law en fo rcem en t fo un d 1,0 29 im ag es an d 49 vi de o fil es on th e la pt op , al l

de pi ct in g ch il d po rn og rap hy. In ad di ti on , an an al y si s of th e la pt op rev eal ed se ve ral

on li ne ch at co nv ers at io ns co nd uc te d on th e la pt op by a pe rs on em pl oyin g th e

us ern am es "b oo st _v irg in " an d "m em 65 9." Dur in g th es e co nv ers at io n s , th e pe rs on

op erat in g un de r us ern am e "b oo st _v irg in " sai d at vari ou s t im es th at he was 31 y ears
ol d, fro m Mi ss ou ri, fiv e feet ei gh t in ch es ta ll

, an d th e fat he r of two so ns who were 6

an d 10 y ears ol d. Bas ed on th is id en t i f yi n g in fo rm at io n an d th e fact th at th e ch at s

were co nd uc te d by a pe rs on us in g Man ni ng 's la pt op , la w en fo rcem en t de te rm in ed it

was Man ni ng , op erat in g un de r th e us er na m es "b oo st _v irg i n " a n d "m em 65 9," who

en ga ge d i n t he se ch at s wi th ot he r un kn own in di vi du al s fr om th e in te rn et

.

-3

-The ch at co nv ers at io ns co nt ai ne d pr od ig io us am ou nt s of in cri m in at in g

in fo rm at io n ag ai ns t Man ni ng

. Man ni ng freq ue nt ly di scuss ed w ith oth er int er ne t user s

th e di ffer en t "t y

pe s" of ch il d po rn o g r a ph y he was se ek in g to do wnl oa d an d hi s

en joy m en t of ch il d po rn o g r a p h y in ge ne ral

. The on li ne ch at s al so di sc us se d

Man ni ng 's se xu al ab us e of hi s 6 an d 10 y ear ol d so ns

. The so ns were in te rv ie wed by

so ci al se rv ic es an d in it ia ll y de ni ed an y se xu al ab us e by th ei r fat he r. The y ou ng er so n

was la te r re-i nt erv ie wed an d di sc lo se d th at Man ni ng se xu al ly ab us ed hi m on m ul ti pl e

oc cas io ns

.

At tri al

, th e jury sa w sa m pl es of th e im ag es an d vi de os de pi ct in g ch il d

po rn og rap hy reco ve red fro m th e la pt op an d Mem or ex di sc

. The jury al so sa w se ve ral

po rti on s of th e on li ne ch at co nv ers at i o n s , b ut th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Man ni ng 's

pr et ria l m ot io n in li m in e to ex cl ud e se ct io ns of th e ch at s d et ai li ng Man ni ng 's a bu se

of hi s ch il dr en

. Man ni ng ob jecte d to th e ad m is si on of an y of th e ch at co nv ers at io ns ,
arg ui ng th at th ere was i n s u f f ic ie nt ev id en ce to es ta bl is h th at he was on e of th e

pa rti ci pa nt s in th e ch at s an d th at th ey th eref or e co ns ti t u te d in ad m is si bl e he ars ay

. Man ni ng se pa rat el y ch al le ng ed th e ad m is si on of th e Mem or ex di sc , co nt en di ng th at

ch ai n

- o f

- c u st od y qu es ti on s ren de red th e di sc in ad m is si bl e. The di st ric t co ur t

ov erru le d t he se ob

jecti on s.

Man ni ng was th e on ly wit ne ss fo r th e de fen se

. He te st ifi ed th at he own ed th e

la pt op reco ve red by la w en fo rcem en t bu t th at th e co m pu te r de sk whe re th e la pt op an d

di sc s were fo un d be lo ng ed to hi m an d hi s wife

. Acco rd in g to Man ni ng , al th ou gh he

an d hi s wife were go in g th ro ug h a di vo rce an d sh e di d no t li ve at th e ho m e at th e ti m e

of th e se arch

, sh e kn ew th e us ern am es an d pa ss wor ds to acce ss bo th hi s co m pu te r an d

th e wire le ss in te rn et in th e ho m e. He be li ev ed hi s wife an d a m an Man ni ng su sp ect ed

was ha vi ng an affa ir wit h he r ha d ei th er br ok en in to hi s ho m e or us ed "re m ot e acce ss

so ftwa re" to pl an t th e ch il d po rn og rap hy an d ch at co nv ers at io ns on hi s co m pu te r. As

st at ed earl ie r, M a nn in g m en ti on ed ne it he r hi s wife no r he r pu rp or te d lo ve r as

po te nt ia l cu lp rit s t o th e of fic er who in te rv ie wed hi m du rin g th e se arch of h is ho m e.

-4

-The jury ret ur ne d gu il ty ve rd ic ts fo r bo th rece ip t a n d p o s s e s si on of ch il d

po rn og rap hy. Fo r th e rece ip t co un t, th e jury fo un d th at Man ni ng do wnl oa de d cert ai n

im ag es de pi ct in g ch il d po rn og rap hy us in g a "p eer- to -p eer" fil e-s ha rin g se rv ic e. Fo r

th e po ss es si on co un t, th e jury fo un d th at Man ni ng po ss es se d ot he r ch il d po rn og rap hy

im ag es on th e Me m or ex di sc

.

Dur in g th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e go ve rn m en t pres en te d th e po rti on s of the

ch at tra ns cri pt s ex cl ud ed at tri al th at de ta il ed Man ni ng 's se xu al ab us e of hi s own so ns

. In ad di ti on , a so ci al in ve st ig at or te st ifi ed ab ou t an i n t erv ie w sh e co nd uc te d wit h

Man ni ng 's y ou ng es t so n whe re th e so n t o l d th e in ve st ig at or ho w Man ni ng ha d

rep eat ed ly sex ua ll y

ab us ed hi m . A vid eo -ta pe d i nt erv ie w wit h t he ch il d d is cu ss in g

th e ab us e was pl ay ed fo r th e di st ric t co ur t du rin g th e he ari ng

. The co ur t co ns id ered

an d reject ed sev eral of M an ni ng 's o bjec ti on s t o th e pr es en te nc e rep or t and im po se d

a se nt en ce of 24 0 m on th s fo r th e rece ip t co nv ic ti on an d 1 2 0 mo n t hs fo r th e

po ss es si on co nv ic ti on

. The co ur t or de red th at th e se nt en ces ru n co ns e cu ti ve ly,

res ul ti ng in a to ta l te rm of im pr is on m en t of 36 0 m on th s. Man ni ng re cei ve d a li fe

te rm of s up erv is ed rel eas e to fol lo w hi s p ris on sen te nc e. Thi s ap pe al fol lo wed

.

II. Dis cu ss io n

The di sc us si on pr oc eed s as fo ll ows

. Fi rs t, we rev ie w ev id e nt ia ry ru li ng s

co nc ern in g th e di st ric t co ur t's ad m is si on of th e ch at tra ns cri pt s an d th e Mem or ex di sc

in to ev id en ce at tri al

. Seco nd

, we de te rm in e whe th er th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to

su pp or t th e jury's ve rd ic ts t h at Man ni ng kn owi ng ly rece iv ed an d po ss es se d ch il d

po rn og rap hy. Thi rd , we de ci de whe th er Man ni ng 's co nv i c t io n fo r bo th rece ip t an d

po ss es si o n b a s e d on th e ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri al co ns ti tu te s do ub le jeop ard y in

vi ol at io n of th e Fi fth Am en dm en t. Fo ur th

, we rev ie w th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss

of Man ni ng 's s en te nc e.

-5

-A. Evid en ti ary Ch al le ng es

W e rev ie w ev id en ti ary ru li ng s of a di st ric t co ur t fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, Uni te d

St at es v. Yarri ng to n, 63 4 F.3 d 44 0, 44 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ), gi vi ng su bs ta nt ia l de fere nc e

to th e di st ric t cou rt' s det erm in at io ns , Uni te d St at es v. Van Els en , 65 2 F.3 d 95 5, 95 8
(8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Thi s co ur t m ay rev ers e on ly if an erro r "af fect s th e su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s

of th e de fen da nt " or ha s "m or e th an a sl ig ht in flu en ce on th e [jury's] ve rd ic t."

Yarri ng to n, 6 34 F.3d at 4 47

.

i. Ch at Tran sc rip ts

Man ni ng arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti n g c ha t

tra ns cri p t s rel at ed to th e us ern am es "b oo st _v irg in " an d "m em 65 9" di sc ov ered on

Man ni ng 's co m

pu te r. Th e s e ch at co nv ers at io ns were us ed to es ta bl is h Man ni ng 's

in te res t in tra di ng ch il d po rn og rap hy on li ne , as well as hi s se xu al in te res t in ch il dr en

. Man ni ng ren ews hi s ob

jecti on he re t h a t t he ch at s co ns ti tu te he ars ay be cau se th ey

were of fere d to p r o v e t h a t Man ni ng was th e sp eak er in th e ch at s ev en th ou gh th e
di st ric t co ur t al le ge dl y di d no t m ak e a pr el im in ary fin di ng of fact un de r Fed eral Ru le

of Evi de nc e 10 4( a) a s t o w he th er Man ni ng was on e of th e pe rs on s en ga ge d in th e
ch at s. Alt ern at iv el y , M a n n i n g a ss ert s th at th e go ve rn m en t di d no t es ta bl is h by a

pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at Man ni ng w a s o n e th e pe rs on s in th es e

co nv ers at io ns

. Man ni ng al so ch al le ng es th e ad m is si on of th e st at em en ts in th e ch at

tra ns cri pt s m ad e by hi s cha t con ve rs at io n par tn ers , arg ui ng th at su ch st at em en ts are
he ars ay no t wi th in an y

ex cep ti on

.

Man ni ng 's arg um en ts co nc ern in g th e ad m is si bi li ty of th e ch at s are

un pe rs ua si ve

. Befo re ad m it ti ng po rti on s of th e tra ns cri pt s of t h e o nl in e ch at

co nv ers at io ns in to ev id en ce, th e di st ric t co ur t he ard ex te ns iv e arg um en ts fro m

Man ni ng 's co un s e l th at th e ch at s co ns ti tu te d in ad m is si bl e he ars ay an d di d no t

su ffi ci en tl y id en ti fy Man ni ng as th e pe rs on op erat in g un de r th e u se rn am es

-6

-"b oo st _v irg in " an d "m em 659. " In ru li ng on ad m is si bi li ty, th e di st ric t co ur t co nf irmed

th at po rti on s of th e ch at s co nt ai ne d id en ti fy in g in fo rm at io n a bo ut Man ni ng

. In

ad di ti on , th e go ve rn m en t pr es en te d t e s t i mo n y of a la w en fo rcem en t of fic er who

he lp ed to ex ecu te t h e s e a r ch warra nt

, an d th e of fic er te st ifi ed th at th e de fen da nt

ad m it te d ad op ti ng th e us ern am e "m em 65 9" fo r hi s co m pu te r acco un t. The us ern am e

fo r hi s co m

pu te r acc ou nt was t he same on e u se d i n s om e o f th e ch at s.

Su ch id en ti fy in g in fo rm at io n, cou pl ed wit h t he un di sp ut ed fact th at th e ch at s

were fo un d on Man ni ng 's pe rs on al la pt op fo un d in a ho m e whe re he li ve d al on e, was

su ffi ci en t f

or th e di st ric t co ur t to fin d th at Man ni ng was th e pe rs on pa rti ci pa ti ng in

th e ch at s un de r th e us ern am es "b oo st _v irg in " an d "m em 65 9." Acco rd in gl y , we ho ld

th at th e co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng th e ch at s i nt o e vi de nc e. 2

The ch at s were ad m is si bl e fo r an ad di ti on al reas on : as ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce (i.e

., a no n- he ars ay pu rp os e) as so ci at in g Man ni ng wit h th e ch il d po rn og rap hy fo un d

on hi s co m

pu te r. In Un it ed Sta te s v . Koch , 62 5 F .3d 47 0 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ), ou r co ur t

affi rm ed a di st ric t co ur t's de ci si on to ad m it ev id en ce of do cu m en ts fo un d on a

co m pu te r an d fla sh dr iv e th at co nt ai ne d in fo rm at io n id en ti fy in g th e de fen da nt

. Id

. at

47 9– 80

. Thi s co ur t he ld th at it was wit hi n a tri al co ur t's di sc ret io n t o a dm it th e
d o c u m en ts as ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce as so ci at in g th e de fen da nt wit h th e co m pu te r

an d fla sh dr iv e (b ot h of whi ch co nt ai ne d il le ga l im ag es ). Id

. at 48 0. As in Koc h, he re

th e ch at tra ns cri pt s fo un d on th e co mp ut er can al te rn at iv el y be co ns tru ed as

To th e ex te nt Man ni ng arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t m ad e no ex pl ic it fin di ng th at 2

on e of th e sp eak er s i n t he ch at s was Man ni ng , we di sa gr ee. In an y ev en t, su ch an
arg um en t is with ou t m eri t, as the di st ric t cou rt m ad e at le as t an im pl ic it fin di ng an d
is no t req ui red to m ak e an ex pl ic it fin di ng in it s ad m is si bi li ty de te rm in at io n. See

W rig ht

, et al

., Prel im in ary Fact Dete rm in at io ns by Ju dg e—P ro ced ur e, 21 A Fed

. Prac

. & Pro c. Evi d. § 50 53 .6 (2 d ed .) (n ot in g th at F.R.E. 10 4( a) "d oe s no t req ui re th e jud ge
to m ak e exp li ci t

fin di ng s o f fac t" ) (em

ph as is ad de d)

.

-7

-ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce co nn ect in g Man ni ng to th e ch il d po rn og rap hy on th e

co m pu te r an d on th e Mem or ex di sc di sc ov ered ne ar th e co m pu t e r

. I n ot he r wor ds

,

no m at te r ho w th e ch at co nv ers at io ns are ch arac te riz ed

, th e di st ric t co ur t was wit hi n

it s d is cret io n t o a dm it th em

.

Fu rth er, th e st at em en ts of th e un kn own pa rti es to th e ch at co nv ers at io ns wit h

Man ni ng were no t he ars ay be cau se th e st at em en ts were no t of fere d fo r th ei r tru th bu t

rat he r to pr ov id e co nt ex t fo r Man ni ng 's res po ns e s

. I n Uni te d St at es v. Co ok e, 67 5

F.3 d 11 53 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ), th is co ur t he ld th at an un kn own in di vi du al 's st at em en ts in

a se xu al ly ex pl ic it em ai l ex ch an ge wit h a de fen da n t were no t he ars ay be cau se th e

u n k n o w n in di vi du al 's st at em en ts were no t of fere d fo r th ei r tru th

. Id

. at 11 56

. F o r

ex am pl e, th e un kn own pe rs on 's st at em en t: "I am 16 is th at ok ay ? " pr ov id ed co nt ex t

fo r th e de fen da nt 's res po ns e: "t ha ts co ol th at ur y ou ng , bu t I do n't wan t u to na rc." Id

. Our co ur t h e l d t h at th e un kn own pe rs on 's st at em en t pr ov id ed co nt ex t fo r th e
de fen da nt 's res po ns e an d th at th e tru th of th e st at em en t was im m at eri al

. Id

. at

11 56 –5 7; se e al so Uni te d S t a t e s v

. Bu rt, 49 5 F.3 d 73 3, 73 8– 39 (7 th Ci r. 20 07 )
(co nc lu di ng th at on li ne ch at co nv ers at io ns di sc us si ng ch il d po rn og rap hy were no t

of fere d fo r th ei r tr ut h b ut to pro vi de co nt ex t fo r de fen da nt 's a dm is si on s)

.

The sa m e a n a lysis ap pl ie s to th is cas e. The st at em en ts of th e un kn own

pa rti ci pa nt s in th e ch at co nv ers at io ns fo un d on Man ni ng 's co m pu te r were no t of

fere d

fo r th ei r tru th

, bu t to pr ov id e co nt ex t fo r Man ni ng 's res po ns es —r e s p o n se s th at

rev eal ed Man ni ng 's id en ti ty, hi s pr efer en ces fo r di ffer en t types of ch il d po rn og rap hy,

an d hi s de si re to ex ch an ge ch il d po rn og rap hy wit h ot he r pe op le on li ne

. The di st ric t

co ur t was wit hi n i ts di sc ret io n i n a dm it ti ng th e co nv ers at io ns

.

-8

-ii . Mem or ex Dis c

Man ni ng ne xt arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng

th e Mem or ex di sc in to ev id en ce ov er Man ni ng 's fo un da t i o n a n d ch ai n- of -cu st od y
ob jecti on s. Sp eci fic al ly, Man ni ng hi gh li gh ts in co ns is te nc ie s in th e ev id en ce lo gs
do cu m en ti ng th e rece ip t of m ul ti pl e co m

pa ct di sc s in to ev id e n c e

. H e be li ev es th e

go ve rn m en t pro vi de d an in su ffi ci en t ev id en ti ary ba si s fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to ad m it

th e d is c.

Man ni ng 's arg um en t is un su pp or te d by la w or th e fact s of th is cas e. Gen eral ly,
ph y si cal ev id en ce m ay

be ad m it te d i f a ch ai n o f cu st od y is es ta bl is he d t ha t s ho ws a

"re as on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at th e ev id en ce ha s no t be en ch an ge d o r al te red ." Uni te d

St at es v. Bru m fie ld

, 68 6 F.3 d 96 0, 96 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). In res ol vi ng ch ai n- of -cu st od y
ch al le ng es , th is co ur t pr es um es th at cu st od ia ns h a v e pr es erv ed th e in te gr it y of th e

ev id en ce ab se nt a su ffi ci en t sh owi ng of ba d fai th

, il l wil l, or pr oo f of ta m pe rin g. Id

. A def ect in th e ch ai n o f cu st od y "t y pi cal ly affect s t he weig ht of th e ev id en ce ra th er

th an it s ad m is si bi li ty." Id.

The go ve rn m en t pr es en te d ev id en ce th at du r in g th e se arch of Man ni ng 's

res id en ce, of

fic ers reco ve red wha t th ey be li ev ed were two co m pa ct di sc s in se pa rat e pl as ti c cas es . W he n t he Mem or ex di sc was fo un d b eh in d on e of th e d is cs in on e o f

th e p la st ic cas es , th e Me m or ex di sc was ad de d t o t he li st of i te m s s ei zed . No p ro of

of ba d fai th

, il l wil l, or ta m pe rin g was sh own , id

., an d an y al le ge d in co ns is te nc ie s

Man ni ng po in te d ou t in th e ev id en ce lo gs were pr op erl y ch al le ng ed on c ro ss

ex am in at io n. In ot he r wor ds

, Ma n n in g of fers no ev id en ce to de feat th e Mem or ex
di sc 's pr es um

pt io n of in t e g r i t y; co ns eq ue nt ly, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s
di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng it

. See Uni te d St at es v. W il so n, 56 5 F.3 d 10 59

, 10 66 (8 th Ci r.

20 09 ) ("Th e lo cat io n an d cu st od y of th e cel lu la r ph on e were adeq ua te ly id en ti fie d an d
[th e de fen da nt ] ha s fai le d to av er an y fact s sh owi ng ch an ge or al te rat io n of th e im ag es

-9

-on th e cel lu la r ph on e. Acco rd in gl y , he ha s fai le d to reb ut th e p res um pt io n of

in te gr it y

. As a res ul t, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e i ts di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng th e
cel lu la r ph on e.").

B. Su ffi ci en cy of t he Evi de nc e

Man ni ng arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce was in su f f i c i e n t f or a reas on ab le jury to

co nc lu de be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at he " k n o w i ng ly" rece iv ed an d po ss es se d

ch il d po rn og rap hy. Thi s co ur t rev ie ws th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce in a jury tri al

de no vo , Yarri n g t o n , 63 4 F.3 d at 44 9, bu t we ex am in e th e ev id en ce in a li gh t m os t

fav or ab le to th e jury's ve rd ic t, res ol vi ng fact ua l di sp ut es an d acce pt in g al l reas on ab le

in fere nc es in fav or of up ho ld in g th e ve rd ic t, id

. W e wil l affi rm a jury's ve rd ic t "i f an y

ra t i o n a 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." W or th ey , 71 6 F.3 d at 11 13

. W e ex am in e t h e fact s su pp or ti ng
each co nv ic ti on sep arat el y

.

i. Rec ei pt Co nv ic ti on

Man ni ng was co nv ic te d of vi ol at in g 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 A(a)(2 ), whi ch m ak es it

a cri m e to "k no win gl y rece iv e[]" "an y ch il d po rn og rap hy" th at ha s be en tra ns po rte d

in in te rs ta te co m

m erce "b y an y m ean s, in cl ud in g by co m pu te r." Man ni ng cl ai m s no

reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve co nc lu de d be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at Man ni ng

"k no win gl y " rece iv ed th e ch il d po rn og rap hy fo un d o n t he ha rd dr iv e of hi s la pt op

. Thi s is so , acco rd in g to Man ni ng , be cau se th e ev id en ce ne ve r de m on st rat ed di rect ly

th at he was th e pe rs on who was us in g th e co m pu te r to do wnl oa d th e il le ga l im ag es

. He arg ue s th at in li gh t of hi s so -cal le d " rem ot e acce ss " th eo ry —t ha t so m eo ne ,
pe rh ap s h is wife or he r pu rp or te d lo ve r, us ed a co m pu te r pr og ram

to pl an t t he ch il d

po r n o g r a ph y an d ch at co nv ers at io ns on hi s co m pu te r in or de r to fram e hi m —n o

-1 0-reas on ab le jury co ul d co nc lu de be y on d a reas on a b l e do ub t th at he was th e pe rs on

who do wnl oa de d t he fil es

.

W e dis ag ree. The ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri al co nc ern in g Man ni ng 's kn owl ed ge

of rece ip t was st ro ng an d pr ov id ed su ffi ci en t su pp or t fo r a gu il ty ve rd ic t

. La w

en fo rcem en t in it ia ll y id en ti fie d a co m pu te r wit h an IP ad dr es s li st ed in Man ni ng 's

na m e th at was of

feri ng ch il d po rn og rap hy fo r do wnl oa d on a pe er-t o- peer fil e-s ha rin g

se rv ic e. Man ni ng ad m it te d to la w en fo rcem en t th at (a) he own ed th e co m pu te r

al le ge d to ha ve do wnl oa de d in te rn et po rn og rap hy; (b ) acce ss to th e co m p u t e r a n d

in te rn et was pa ss wor d- pr ot ect ed ; an d (c) he em pl oyed th e us ern am e "m em 65 9" fo r

th e co m pu te r, whi ch was a l so a us ern am e fo r so m e of th e ch at s fo un d on it

. Tho se
ch at s fu rth er es ta bl is he d Man ni n g ' s kn owl ed ge of rece ip t, as th ey rev eal ed

, am on g

ot he r th in gs , co pi ou s am ou nt s of di sc us si on co nc ern in g th e ex ch an ge of ch il d

po rn o gr ap hy wit h ot he r us ers of fil e-s ha rin g se rv ic es

. Mo re di rect ly, se ve ral ch at s
di sc lo se d id en ti fy in g in fo rm at io n co nc ern in g Man nin g' s he igh t, w ei ght

, ag e, an d stat e

of res id en ce. Thi s id en ti fy in g in fo rm at io n was di sc lo se d in th e co nt ex t of di sc us si ng

th e ex ch an ge of c hi ld po rn og rap hy with ot he rs

.

To th e ex te nt Man ni ng be li ev es he is en ti tl ed to rel ie f b a s e d on hi s "re m ot e

acce ss " the or y , he fu nd am en ta ll y m is un de rs ta nd s t he rol e o f th e jury and th e na tu re

of ap pe ll at e rev ie w. "[I ]t is ax io m at ic th at we do no t rev ie w qu es ti on s in vo lv in g th e
cred ib il it y of wit ne ss es , bu t le av e cred ib il it y qu es ti on s to th e jury." Uni te d St at es v.
Dab ne y , 36 7 F.3 d 10 40

, 10 43 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). The jury was free to reject Man ni ng 's

th eo ry , an d it di d whe n it fo un d th at Man ni ng was th e pe rs on op erat in g hi s co m pu te r
whe n th e ch il d po rn og rap hy was do wnl oa de d. Acco rd in gl y , a reas on ab le jury co ul d

co nc lu de be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at Man ni ng kn owi ng ly rece iv ed th e un la wfu l

im ag es

.

-1 1-ii . Pos se ss io n C on vi ct io n

18 U.S.C. § 22 52 A(a ) (5 )(B) cri m in al iz es th e kn owi ng po ss es si on of ch il d

po rn og rap hy. Man ni ng 's po ss es si on co nv ic ti on was ba se d on im ag es di sc ov ered on

th e Mem or ex di sc

. Man ni ng arg ue s th at no reas on ab le jury co ul d con cl ud e be y on d

a reas on ab le do ub t th at he kn owi ng ly po ss es se d th e Mem or ex di sc

. Sp eci fic al ly, he

co nt en ds th at th e m ere fact th at th e di sc was se iz ed du rin g a se arch of hi s ho m e was

in su ffi ci en t, s ta nd in g a lo ne , to su pp or t a ju ry co nv ic ti on

.

Man ni ng 's arg um en t fai ls to ack no wled g e t he fu ll sc op e of ev id en ce ag ai ns t

hi m

. Fo r on e, he li ve d al on e in hi s ho m e whe n th e di sc was reco ve red fro m th e de sk

w h ere th e la pt op was se iz ed

. And th e ch at co nv ers at io ns de ta il in g Man ni ng ' s

ex te ns iv e kn owl ed ge of

, an d in te res t in

, ch il d po rn o g r a p h y, were pr ob at iv e as
ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce reg ard in g Man ni ng 's kn owi ng po ss es si on of th e M e m or ex
di sc

. The jury, ex erci si ng it s ro le as tri er of fac t

, reject ed Man ni ng 's al te rn at e

th eo ry —t ha t hi s wife ha d pl an te d th e di sc in or de r to fram e hi m

. Acco rd Uni te d

St at es v. Hue th er, 67 3 F.3 d 78 9, 79 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (co nc lu di ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t

co rrec tl y in st ru ct ed th e jury "as tri er of fact " th at th ey were free to acce pt or r e je c t

te st im on y fro m wit ne ss es at tri al ). W e ho ld th at th e ev id en ce was s u f f i ci en t to

su pp or t t he jury's ver di ct on po ss es si on

.

C. Dou bl e Je op ard y

Man ni ng arg ue s th at hi s co nv ic ti on s an d se nt en ces fo r bo th rece ip t an d

po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy vi ol at e th e D o u b le Je op ard y Cl au se of th e Fi fth

Am en dm en t. Man ni ng fai le d to rai se th is arg um en t be lo w , s o w e r e v ie w h is cl ai m

fo r pl ai n erro r. "To ob ta in rel ie f un de r a pl ai n- erro r st an d a r d o f rev ie w, th e pa rty

se ek in g re li ef m

us t s ho w th at th ere was an erro r, th e err or is cle ar o r ob vi ou s u nd er

cu rren t l a w, th e erro r affe ct ed th e pa rty's su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s, an d th e erro r se rio us ly

-1 2-affe c t s th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y , o r pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs ." Uni te d

St at es v. Me st et h, 6 87 F.3d 10 34 , 10 37 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.

The Dou bl e Je op ard y Cl a u s e fo rb id s im po si ng m ul ti pl e pu ni sh m en ts fo r th e

sa m e cri m in al of

fen se

. Uni te d St at es v. Mu hl en br uc h, 63 4 F.3 d 98 7, 10 02 (8 th Ci r.

20 11 ). To pr ov e a vi ol at io n, Ma n n i ng m us t de m on st rat e th at he was co nv ic te d of

"t wo of fen se s th at are in la w an d fact th e sa m e of fen se ." Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d)

. Thi s ci rcu it ha s he ld th at po ss es si o n o f ch il d po rn og rap hy is a le ss erin cl ud ed of

fen se to rece ip t of ch il d po rn og rap hy. Id

. at 10 03 (co nc lu di ng th at pr oo f

of rece iv in g ch il d po rn og rap hy ne ces sa ril y in cl ud e s pr oo f of po ss es si on of ch il d

po rn og rap hy an d th at "Co ng res s di d no t in te nd to im po se m ul ti pl ic it ou s pu ni sh m en t

fo r th es e of

fen se s" ); co m

pa re 18 U.S.C. § 22 52(a )( 4) (B), wit h 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2)

. As su ch

, th e is su e he re is whe th er Man ni ng 's co nv ic ti on s fo r po ss es si on an d rece ip t

"wer e b as ed on th e sa m e fac ts ." Hue th er, 6 73 F.3d at 7 98

.

The am en de d i n d i c t ment in th is cas e ch arg ed Man ni ng wit h on e co un t of

rece ip t of ch il d po rn og rap hy an d on e co un t of po ss es si on of ch il d po r n o g rap hy.

Si gn ifi can tl y , th e ch arg es in th e in di ct m en t were pr ed ic at ed on di f f e r e n t fact s an d

i mag e s

. The ch arg e fo r rece ip t of ch il d po rn og rap hy was ba se d on ima g e s
do wnl oa de d ov er th e in te rn et be twee n Aug us t 14

, 20 10 an d Sep te m be r 25

, 20 10

. In

co nt ras t, th e ch arg e fo r po ss es si on sp eci fie d th at at da te s un kn own bu t up un ti l
Sep te m be r 25

, 20 10

, Man ni ng po ss es se d th e Mem or ex di sc th at co nt ai ne d two ch il d

po rn og rap hy vi de o fil es di ff er en t fro m th e fil es i d en ti fie d in th e rece ip t co un t.

Acco rd in gl y , th e rec ei pt an d p os se ss io n c ha rg es were b as ed on sep arat e fac ts

.

Thi s ci rcu it ha s he ld th at whe n a de fen da nt is ch arg ed wit h bo th a gr eat er an d

le ss er of fen se , " th e jury m

us t be in st ru ct ed th at th ey can no t co nv ic t [d efen da nt ] fo r
bo th of fen se s ba se d on th e sa m e fact s." Hue th er, 67 3 F.3 d at 79 8. In Man ni ng 's cas e,

th is m ean s th e jury co ul d no t us e th e sa m e pi eces of ev id en ce to co nv ic t hi m of bo th

-1 3-rece ip t an d po ss es si on

. As di sc us se d ab ov e, th e in di ct m en t sp eci fie d di ffer en t fact s

an d im ag es fo r each ch arg e. Si m il arl y , th e jury fo rm as ke d th e jury to id en ti fy whi ch

im ag es th ey fo un d Man ni n g r ecei ve d on hi s la pt op , an d whi ch im ag es Man ni ng

po ss es se d on th e Mem or ex di sc

. The jury se le ct ed di ffer en t im ag es fo r each of fen se

. Not hi ng in th e reco rd su gg es ts Man ni ng was co nv ic te d "o f rece iv in g th e sa m e im ag es

th at h e w a s a l s o fo un d to ha ve po ss es se d," Hue th er, 67 3 F.3 d at 79 8, an d th us no
do ub le jeop ard y vi ol at io n oc cu rred

, se e Uni te d S t at es v. Bu rm an , 66 6 F.3 d 11 13

, 11 17 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) ("P os se ss io n is ge ne ral ly a le ss er-i nc lu de d of fen s e o f rece ip t;

ho wev er, in th is cas e, th e su pe rced in g in di ct m en t do es no t in di cat e th at t h e r ecei pt

an d p os se ss io n c ou nt s ar e b as ed on th e sa m e fac ts an d i m ag es .").

D. Sent en ci ng Ch al le ng es

Man ni ng arg ue s th at hi s 36 0- m on th se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ad dr es s a pu rp or t e d di sc on ne ct be twee n th e ch il d

po rn og rap hy gu id el in es un de r U.S. Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l § 2G2 .2 an d th e

st at ut or y se nt en ci ng fact or s un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)

. Sp eci fic al ly, he cl ai m s th at

th e ch il d po rn og rap hy gu id el in es ro ut in el y pr od uc e se nt en ces at or ne ar th e st at ut or y

m ax im um pe na lt ie s ev en in m in e-ru n cas es an d refl ect th e po li ti cal w i l l of a few

Co ng res si on al m em

be rs in st ead of th e da ta -d riv en ex pe rti se of th e Uni te d St at es

Sen te nc in g Co m

m is si on

. Man ni ng arg ue s th at he pr es en ts a "m in e-ru n cas e," th at hi s

co nd uc t was "t y

pi cal ," an d th at th eref

or e th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by

rel y in g t oo he av il y

on Sect io n 2 G2.2 in fas hi on in g h is sen te nc e.

W e rev ie w th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of Man ni ng 's se nt en ce un de r a
"d efer en ti al ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd ." Uni te d Stat es v. Beas le y , 68 8 F.3d 52 3,

53 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). An ab us e of di sc ret io n m ay oc cu r if a se nt en ci ng co ur t ig no res

a rel ev an t fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht

, gi ve s to o m uc h weig ht

to an irr el ev an t or im

pr op er facto r, or co m

m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t even whe n

-1 4-weig hi ng on ly ap pr op ria te fact o r s

. I d

. If th e di st ric t co ur t im po se s a wit hi nGui de li ne s se nt en ce, th is co ur t pr es um es t h e s en te nc e is reas on ab le

, an d Man ni ng
be ars th e b ur de n t o re bu t t he pre su m pt io n. Id

.

Man ni ng 's arg um en t is no t pe rs ua si ve

. Thi s co ur t ap pl ie s a pr es um pt io n of

reas on a b l e n e ss to a wit hi n- Gui de li ne s se nt en ce, ev en if th e gu id el in e th at pr ov id es

th e se nt en ce is a pr od uc t of Co ng res si on al di rect io n. See Uni te d St at es v. Bl ack

, 67 0

F.3 d 87 7, 88 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). And whi le a di st ric t co ur t m ay ch oo se to de vi at e fro m

th e gu id el in es be cau se of a po li cy di sa gr eem en t, cf. Kim br ou gh v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2

U.S. 85

, 11 0 (2 00 7)

, "a di st ric t co ur t is no t r eq ui red to do so ," Bl ack

, 67 0 F.3 d at

88 2. In th is cas e, in ad di ti on to Man ni ng 's jury co nv ic ti on s fo r po ss es si on an d rece ip t

of ch il d po rn og rap hy, at se nt en ci ng th e go ve rn m en t of fere d a vi de ot ap e st at em en t by

on e of Man ni ng 's so ns whe re th e ch il d de ta il ed ho w hi s fat he r ha d rep eat ed ly se xu al ly

ab us ed hi m

. The di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered th e ch il d's te s t i mo n y in arri vi ng at

Man ni ng ' s ult im at e se nte nc e. O n it s face

, su ch te st im on y de feat s Man ni ng 's arg um en t

th at he pr es en ts a "t y

pi cal " ch il d p o r n o g rap hy cas e un de se rv in g of a pu rp or te dl y
dr aco ni an wit hi n- Gui de li ne s se nt en ce. W e ho ld th at Man ni ng 's se nt en c e was no t

su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le

.

III.

The ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to co nv ic t Man ni ng of on e co un t of rece ip t of ch il d

po rn og rap hy an d on e co un t of po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy. W e reject Man ni ng 's

ev id en ti ary ch al le ng es an d h is cla im th at hi s con vi ct io ns fo r rec ei pt an d p os se ss io n

in th is cas e co ns ti tu te do ub le jeop ard y

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t of th e
di st ric t co ur t.

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

-1 5-