NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ANTHONY ESPINOSA GONZALES, AKA 

Anthony Espinoza Gonzales, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-10362 

D.C. No. 

2:17-cr-01311-DGC-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 6, 2023

Phoenix, Arizona

Before: HAWKINS and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and S. MURPHY,** District 

Judge.

Appellant Anthony Espinosa Gonzales appeals his jury trial conviction for

eight counts of distribution of child pornography and one count of possession of 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Stephen Joseph Murphy III, United States District 

Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

FILED

FEB 7 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

child pornography. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not repeat them 

here. Gonzales raises three issues on appeal. For the reasons below, we affirm the 

district court. 

First, Gonzales argued that the district court abused its discretion by finding 

that the Government presented adequate foundation for (1) the reliability of 

Torrential Downpour, (2) the “mirror image” process used to clone the seized tablet, 

(3) the processes underlying the Forensic Took Kit (FTK) tool, and (4) the processes 

underlying the Independent Evidence Finder (IEF) tool. We review the district 

court’s determinations about authentication and foundation for an abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Estrada-Eliverio, 583 F.3d 669, 672 (9th Cir. 2009); 

United States v. Tank, 200 F.3d 627, 630 (9th Cir. 2000). “To satisfy the requirement 

of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce 

evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it 

is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a).

First, the Government presented two witnesses, Detective Erdely and Special 

Agent Cullen, who testified to the accuracy and reliability of Torrential Downpour, 

the mirror image process, the FTK tool, and the IEF tool and explained how each 

electronic forensic tool functions. Because the testimony presented at trial 

adequately explained the reliability of the processes underlying all four categories 

of digital forensic evidence challenged by Gonzales, the Government satisfied its 
3 

burden of showing that Torrential Downpour, the mirror image process, the FTK 

program, and the IEF program were what the Government claimed they were. See 

Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). The district court did not abuse its discretion. 

Second, Gonzales argued that the Government failed to prove he knew the 

images underlying Counts 4, 7, and 8 were child pornography because it presented 

no evidence that he opened or viewed those files. We review a forfeited challenge 

to the sufficiency of the evidence for plain error. United States v. Lopez, 4 F.4th 

706, 719 (9th Cir. 2021). The crime of distribution of child pornography requires 

that a defendant knew that the image at issue depicted a minor engaged in sexually 

explicit conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 2252. But the Government need not present direct 

evidence that the child pornography files were accessed or opened in every case to 

establish knowledge. See, e.g., United States v. Ruiz-Castelo, 835 F. App’x 187, 

189 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that “the government was required to prove RuizCastelo’s knowledge that the video contained sexually explicit conduct with a minor, 

not that Ruiz-Castelo necessarily viewed the video before he distributed it”). 

What is more, the fact that the forensic evidence did not show that the files 

containing the images underlying Counts 4, 7, and 8 had been opened does not 

undermine the convictions on those counts because circumstantial evidence of the 

number of child pornography files and their location may be sufficient to prove 

knowledge. United States v. Hardrick, 766 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2014). Here, 
4 

Gonzales admitted that he used the tablet to search for child pornography during the 

relevant timeframe, he possessed many child pornography files in an unusual 

location on the device, and he successfully shared other child pornography files with 

the FBI that he viewed but that were no longer on his device. The Government 

therefore presented sufficient evidence at trial for a reasonable juror to conclude that 

Gonzales knew the images underlying Counts 4, 7, and 8 showed minors engaged in 

sexually explicit conduct.

Third, Gonzales argued that the district court improperly delegated the setting 

of his restitution payment schedule to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Because 

Gonzales did not object to the district court’s order setting a restitution payment 

schedule at sentencing, his argument is reviewed for plain error. See Fed. R. Crim. 

P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). To be sure, the district 

court cannot delegate the setting of a restitution payment schedule to the probation 

office or the BOP. United States v. Gunning, 401 F.3d 1145, 1150 (9th Cir. 2005). 

But the BOP nonetheless has “independent power to administer the [Inmate 

Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP)],” Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042, 

1046−47 (9th Cir. 2012), and may require inmates who participate in IFRP “to pay 

restitution to victims at a higher or faster rate than was specified by the sentencing 

court,” United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1044 (9th Cir. 2008). And although 

the district court’s judgment here states that “payment shall be made through 
5 

[IFRP],” Gonzales fails to show that his subsequent participation in that program 

was not voluntary on his part. Thus, because Gonzales was a voluntary participant 

in IFRP, the BOP had the authority to adjust Gonzales’s restitution payment 

schedule. The district court therefore did not plainly err. 

We therefore AFFIRM the district court.