N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JOSEPH NGUYEN,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-50062

D.C . No. 3:13-c r-03447-M M A-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M ic ha e l M . Ane llo, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 12, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : IKUTA a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s , a nd M c NAM EE, ** Distric t Judge . Jose ph Nguy e n

a p pe a ls his c onvic tion for one c ount of posse ssion of c hild pornogra phy . W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED JUL 24 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Ste phe n M . M c Nam e e , Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.1. Disc ove ry . Nguy e n s ought to disc ove r inform ation tha t c ould only

be use d to (1) find a

ba sis for a

m otion to suppre ss; or (2) de fe nd a ga inst the distribution cha

rge at tria l. The distric t

c ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion by de ny ing Nguy e n’ s m otion for disc ove ry . First, Nguy e n fa ile d to bring the m otion in a tim e ly

m anne r. Unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 12(c ), the distric t c ourt m ay e sta blish de a dline s for pre tria l m otions. It wa s not a n a buse of disc re tion to de ny a m otion for e vide nc e to support a n untim e ly

m otion to suppre s s. Se c ond, the Gove rnm e nt dismisse d the distribution cha rge be fore tria l. Thus, the i nform a tion (re ga

rding thesoftwa

re the Gove rnm e nt use d to disc ove r that c hild pornogra phy ha d be e n downloa de d at his IP a ddre ss) wa s not m ate ria l to the re m a ining posse ssion c ha rge . Se e Fe d. R . C rim . P. 16(a )(1)(E)(i) (re quiring the inform a t ion m

u st be “ m a te ria l to pre pa

ring the de fe nse ” ). Fina lly , Nguy e n fa ile d to de m onstra te that “ the Gove rnm e nt [wa s] in posse s sion of inform a tion he l pful to thede fe nse .” Unite d State s v . Ste v e r , 603 F.3d 747, 752 (9th C ir. 2010) (c ita tion a nd quota tion m arks om itte d ). Nguy e n sought inform a t ion a lm ost e xc lusive ly in the posse ssion of thesoftwa re ’ s third-pa

rty de ve lope r. 2. W arrant. First, the re wa s suffic ie nt proba ble c a use to support the

wa rrant. Law e nforc e m e nt disc o ve re d tha t c hild pornogra

p hy wa s be ing sha

re d from a 2c om

pute r using a

c e rta in IP a ddre ss. Tim e W arne r C a ble m atc he d the IP a ddre ss with a c u stom e r nam e and se rvic e a ddre ss. La w e nforc e m e nt the n ve rifie d the nam e and a ddre ss with the loc a l utility

provide r. This wa s suffic ie nt to e s ta blish a

“ fa ir proba

bility tha t c ontra ba nd or e vide nc e of a

c rim e [would] be found in [Nguy e n’ s hom e ] .” Illinois v . Gate s , 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983) Se c ond, the warran t wa s not supporte d by a sta le a ffidavit. The a ffidavit a tte ste d tha

t (1) a c om pute r using a

give n IP a ddre ss “posse sse d m ultiple suspe c te d c hild pornogra

phy file s a va i la ble for sha

ring” ; (2) la

w e nforc e m e nt ha d downloa de d one vide o (with a file nam e indic ating it wa s c hild pornogra phy ) and ve rifie d it wa s c hild pornogra phy ; (3) the subsc ribing a ge nt ha d e xte nsive e xpe rie nc e working with c hild pornogra phy inve stiga tions; a nd (4) individuals who c olle c t c hild pornogra phy te nd to tre at

the ir c olle c tion a s a

“ priz e d posse s sion[] ” and will ofte n m ake m ultipleba c kups to prote c t it. “ The m e re la pse of substa ntia l a m ounts of time is not c ontrolling in a que stion of stale ne ss,” Unite d State s v . Dozie r , 844 F.2d 701, 707 (9th C ir. 1988), a nd “ in light of the pa

rtic ula r fa c t s of [this] c a se ,” a

thre e m onth de la

y be twe e n the initia l downloa d a nd the se arc h did not make the wa rran t sta le , Unite d State

s v . Lac y , 119 F.3d 742, 745-46 (9th C ir. 1997) (c ita

tion a nd quota tion m arks om i tte d) (finding no stale n e ss whe re

3the re wa s a

te n m onth de la

y c om bine d with a tte sta tions sim ila r to the insta

nt c a se re ga rding c hild pornogra

phy c olle c tors). 3. Evide nc e . Any

a buse of disc re tion by

the distric t c ourt for fa iling to re vie w the two im a g e s a

nd six-se c ond vide o of c h i ld pornogra phy be fore a llowing the G ove rnm e nt to publish the m to the jury

wa s ha rm le ss. C f. Unite d State

s v . Me r ino-Balde rrama , 146 F.3d 758, 761-63 (9th C ir. 1998) (finding “ [a ] llowing the jury to vie w m ore tha

n te n m inute s of film

portra y i ng c h i ldre n e nga ge d in gra phic se xua l c onduc t” wa s not ha rm le ss). First, Nguy e n

m ake s no a lle gation or fa c tua l de m onstra

tion tha t som e of the im a ge s or vide o c lips not shown we re le ss infla m m a tory tha n the one s shown to the

jury . Se c o nd, “ the distric t c o urt use d just a bout e ve ry

tool a t its disposa

l to m inim iz e the infla

m m at ory nat ure of the im a ge s,” Unite d State

s v . Ganoe , 538 F.3d 1117, 1124 (9th C ir. 2008), by se ve re ly m inim iz ing (from

ove r five hundre d vide o s a n d im a g e s to two im a ge s a n d one , sixse c o nd vide o c lip) wha

t the Gove rnm e nt wa s a llowe d to show a nd giving a c a utiona ry instruc tion whe n the e vide nc e wa s pre se nte d. Fina lly , the e vide nc e a ga inst Nguy e n

wa s ove rwhe lm ing: (1) Nguy e n wa s sle e ping in his be d room whe n the s e arc h wa s c onduc te d, (2) the se a rc h re ve a le d

c hild pornogra

phy on va rious ha rd drive s a

nd the c o m

pute r ne xt to Nguy e n, (3) Nguy e n’ s pe rsona l file s we re on

4the h ard drive s, a nd (4) one of the re side nts of thehom e te stifie d tha t Nguy e n told him he wa s in troublefor “ downloa d[ing] som e m ovie s.” 4. Alibi Instruc tion. Thedistric t c o urt did not err by re fusing to give an a libi jury instruc tion. To prove

the c h arge d offe nse , the Gove rnm e nt only ne e de d to prove Nguy e n posse sse d c hild pornogra phy “ on or a bout Ja nua ry 29, 2013.”The fa c t tha t Nguy e n m ight ha

ve a n a libi for o the r

date s is not re le va

nt to thec ha

rge and, thus, there wa s no le ga l ba sis for the instruc tion. S e e Unite d State

s v . K ay se r , 488 F.3d 1070, 1073 (9th C ir. 2007). 5. Dua l Purpose Instruc tion. Thedistric t c ourt did not pla i nly e rr by fa iling to give a dua l purpose instruc tion. Although the distric t c ourt did not give a form a l instruc tion a

t the c lose of e vide nc e , it sua sponte gave a dua l purpose instruc tion a fte r e a c h of the re le va

nt Gove rnm e nt witne sse s te stifie d. The instruc tion give n during thetria l m a te ria lly c om m unic ate d the ne c e ssa

ry distinc tions be twe e n

e xpe rt and pe rc i pie nt te stim ony , pa rtic ula rly e nsuring tha

t no “unm e rite d c re dibility ” wa s a sc ribe d to the fa c t te stim ony . Unite d State s v . Ve ra , 770 F.3d 1232, 1242 (9th C ir. 2014). AFFIRM E D.

5