FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 5, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT
UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. W I LL I AM S CHAEF ER, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 3080

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt

for t he D i s t ri ct of

K ansas ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CR- 2 0 1 5 6 - J W L) H ow ar d A . Pi ncus , A s s i s t antFeder al Publ i c D efe nder( R aym ond P. M oor e, Feder al Publ i c D efe nder , w i t h hi m on the br i efs ) , D enver , C ol or ado, for D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. K i m I . M art i n, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney( E r i c F. M el gr en, U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , w i t h heron t he br i ef) , K ans as C i ty , K ans as , forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee. B efor e TY M KOVI CH , EBEL , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. HO LM ES , C i r cui tJ udge. I n t hi s cr i m i nal appea l , D efe ndant
- A ppel l antW i l l i am S chae ferchal l enges t he governm ent ’ s evi dence as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor thi s convi ct i ons under18 U . S. C . §§ 2252( a) ( 2) and ( a) ( 4) ( B ) , forr ece i ptand pos s es s i on of i m agesT h e sta tu te r e a d s in re lev a n t p a rt: 1 (a ) A n yp e rs o n w h o – . . . ( 2) know i ngl yr ece i ves , ordi s tr i but es , anyvi s ual depi ct i on thathas been mai l ed, orhas been s hi pped ort r ans por t ed i n i nt er s t at e or (c o n tin u e d ...) - 2 - i nvol vi ng t he s exual expl oi t at i on of m i nor s . I n par t i cul ar , M r . Schaefercont ends t he governm entfai l ed t o offe revi dence t o s how thatanys i ngl e vi s ual i m age he r ece i ved orpos s es s ed tr avel ed ac r os s s t at e l i nes . M r . Schaefers eeks a r ever s al a n d a c q u itta l o n b o th c o u n ts . E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291, w e hol d thatthe g o v e rn m e n t fa iled to o ffe r su fficie n t ev id e n c e to e sta b lish th e re q u isite j uri sdi ct i on al nex us of a m ov em ent acr oss st at e l i nes ( i . e. , a m o v e m e n t in i nt er s t at e comm er ce) . Speci fi cal l y , w e conc l ude thatthe governm ent ’ s evi dence conce r ni ng M r . Schaefer ’ s us e of the I nt ernet , s t andi ng al one, w as nots uffi ci ent to e s ta b lis h th a t th e c h ild -p o rn o g ra p h yim a g e s a t is s u e m o v e d a c ro s s s ta te lin e s . A ccor di ngl y , w e REVERSE M r . Schaefer ’ s convi ct i ons and RE M AND t o the d is tr ic t c o u rt fo r e n tr yo f a ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l. I . BA CKGROUND T he governm entchar ged M r . Schaeferi n the D i s tr i ctof K ans as w i th one countof r ece i vi ng chi l d por nogr aphy , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2252( a) ( 2) , and o n e c o u n t o f

p o s s e s s io n o f

c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2252( a) ( 4) ( B ) . T hes e cha r ges s t em from a l ead the K ans as C i tyO ffi ce of 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 for ei gn comm er ce, orw hi ch cont ai ns m at er i al s w hi ch have been m ai l ed ors o s hi pped ortr ans por t ed, byanym eans i ncl udi ng by comput er , orknow i ngl yr epr oduces anyvi s ual depi ct i on for d istrib u tio n in in ter sta te o r fo re ig n c o m m e rc e o r th ro u g h th e m a ils, if

--- - ( A ) t he pr oduci ng of s uch vi s ual depi ct i on i nvol ves the us e of a mi norengagi ng i n s exual l yexpl i ci tconduct ; and (B ) s u c h v is u a l d e p ic tio n is o f s u c h c o n d u c t; . . . ( 4) ei t her– (B ) know i ng l ypo sses ses 1 or m ore boo ks, m agazines, p e rio d ica ls, film s, v id e o tap e s, o r o th e r m a tter w h ich c o n tain anyvi s ual depi ct i on thathas been mai l ed, orhas been s hi pped ort r ans por t ed i n i nt er s t at e orfor ei gn comm er ce, orw hi ch w as produ ced u si ng m at eri al s w hich hav e been m ai l ed o r s o sh ip p e d o r tra n sp o rte d , b ya n ym e a n s in c lu d in g b yc o m p u ter , if

– ( i ) t he pr oduci ng of s uch vi s ual depi ct i on i nvol ves the u se o f a m in o r e n g a g in g in se x u a llye x p licit c o n d u c t; and (i i) s u c h v is u a l d e p ic tio n is o f s u c h c o n d u c t . . . . - 3 - I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement( I C E ) r ece i ved fr om the I C E nat i onal headqua r t er s . A ccor di ng t o t he i nform at i on, M r . Schaeferus ed hi s comput erand h is c re d it c a rd s to s u b s c ri b e to w e b s ite s c o n ta in in g im a g e s o f c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y . T h e s e s ite s p ro v id e p a y in g m e m b e rs e le c tr o n ic a c c e s s to p o rn o g ra p h ic im a g e s . F o ll o w ing the tip f

rom IC E , au tho ri ti es e x ec u ted a sea rch w arran t atM r. Schaefer ’ s hom e. A gent s s ei zed a des kt op comput er , C D - R om di s ks ( “C D s ”) , and var i ous document s . For ens i c t es t i ng on the comput err evea l ed thatM r . Schaefer pur chas ed atl eas tfi ve s ubs cr i pt i ons t o chi l d pornogr aphyw ebs i t es . T he t es t i ng“U nal l ocat ed cl us t er s ” ar e hi dden fi l es on the comput erhar d dr i ve 2 u s u a lly n o t a c c e s s ib le to a u s e r. See R . v o l. I, D o c. 39 , D istri ct C o u rt M em o ran d u m an d O rde r, at 3 n . 1 (S ep t. 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 ).

A n “ In ter n e t ca c h e ” is a file th a t re tain s in fo rm a tio n a b o u t re c e n tly 3 v is ite d w e b s ite s a llo w in g th e s ite to b e lo a d e d fa s te r i n th e f u tu re . See R . v o l. I, D o c . 3 9 , supra , at3 n. 2.

A w ebs i t e M r . Schaefervi s i t ed us ed a thi r d partybi l l i ng company 4 b a se d in N e w Je rse ya n d th a t co m p a n yu se d a F lo rid a -b a se d c o m p a n yto c o o rd in a te its b illin g b u s in e s s . See R . v o l. II, E x h ib it 1 . M icr o so f t, h e a d q u a rt e re d in W a s h in g to n S ta te , is s u e d M r. S c h a e fe r’ s e m a il a d d re s s . Id. at5. - 4 - al s o r evea l ed i m ages of chi l d pornogr aphyi n the comput er ’ s “unal l ocat ed cl us t er s ” and on the t empora r y“I nt ernetcac he fi l es . ” T he part i es s t i pul at ed that

2 3 one C D confi s cat ed cont ai ned ei ghti m ages of chi l d pornogr aphyand the s econd cont ai ned thr ee pornogr aphi c i m ages . A uthor i t i es i nt ervi ew ed M r . Schaeferaft er th e se a rc h o f

h is h o m e , an d h e a d m itt e d to se e k in g o u t im a g e s o f c h ild p o rn o g ra p h yo n th e In te rn e t. T he di s t r i ctcour thel d a benc h tr i al , aft erM r . Schaeferw ai ved hi s r i ghtt o a j ur yt r i al . O t hert han M r . Schaefer ’ s hom e s t at e of K ans as , t he evi dence att r i al refere n ce d o n lythree stat es – N ew Jerse y , F lori d a, an d W ash ing ton . H o w ev er, 4 none of thes e geogr aphi cal r efe r ence s conce rned the r ece i ptof the i m ages , t he C D s p o sses sed , o r th e a ctua l i m ag es fo u n d o n the C D s an d the c o m p u ter. In addi t i on, an i nves t i gat i ng agentt es t i fi ed thathe had no e vi dence M r . Schaefer d o w n lo a d e d im a g e s v ia c o m p u te r a n d p la c e d th e m o n th e C D s fo u n d in h is h o m e . N o evi dence att r i al expl ai ned w her e M r . Schaeferobt ai ned the vi s ual depi ct i onsT he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notconvi ctM r . Schaeferfort he i m ages found 5 i n t he I nt ernetcac he fi l es ort he unal l ocat ed cl us t er s on hi s comput erbeca us e the governm entoffe r ed no evi dence s how i ng M r . Schaeferknew t he comput er cont ai ned the i m ages , t hus no evi dence s how ed he e xhi bi t ed contr ol overt he im a g e s . See R . v o l. I , D o c 3 9 , supra , at 6 . A d d iti o n a lly , the c o u rt re a so n e d th a t, even i f M r . Schaefercoul d be s ai d t o have “ pos s es s ed” the i m ages found on the (c o n tin u e d ...) - 5 - found on the C D s orw ho pl ace d the i m ages on the C D s . M or eover , no evi dence i ndi cat ed w her e the w ebs i t es M r . Schaeferacc es s ed w er e bas ed, w her e the
w ebs i t es ’ s erver s w er e l ocat ed, orw her e M r . Schaefer ’ s I nt ernetpr ovi der ’ s s erver w a s h o u s e d . Focus i ng pr i m ar i l yon t he know l edge c om ponentof §§ 2252( a) ( 2) and (a )( 4 )( B ), h o w e v e r, t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt fo u n d M r. S c h a e fe r g u ilty o n b o th c o u n ts . Speci fi cal l y , w i t h r es pectt o t he tw o count s , the di s tr i ctcourtfound the evi dence e sta b lish e d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t M r. S c h a e fe r b o th k n o w in g ly

“ p o ss e ss e d ” a n d “ re c e iv e d ” im a g e s o f c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y . T h e c o u rt d id n o t f u lly el abor at e i n i t s rul i ng as t o how the governm ents at i s fi ed the j ur i s di ct i onal pr ong of §§ 2252( a) ( 2) and ( a) ( 4) ( B ) – thatthe “vi s ual depi ct i on had bee n m ai l ed, s hi pped, and tr ans por t ed i n i nt er s t at e orfor ei gn comm er ce bycomput erorother m eans . ” See R . vol . I . , D oc. 39, D i s tr i ctC our tM emora ndum and O r der , at5- 6, 8- 10 ( Sept . 12, 2006) . I m por t antt o thi s appea l , the di s tr i ctcourtbas ed the p o ss e ss io n c o n v ictio n so lelyo n M r. S c h a e fe r’s p o ss e ss io n o f th e p o rn o g ra p h ic i m ages on t he tw o C D s , and noton hi s pos s es s i on of the i m ages found on the Int ernet cache fi l es or i n t he un al l ocated cl ust ers . 5( . . . cont i nued) 5 unal l ocat ed cl us t er s atone t i m e, he coul d notbe convi ct ed forthi s , beca us e the g o v e r n me n td i d n o te s t a b l i s h t h a th i s p u t a t i v e p o s s e s s i o n o c c u rr e d d u r i n g th e t i me p e ri o d c h a rg e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. Id .; s ee als o Uni t ed Stat es v. Tucker , 305 F. 3d 1193, 1204 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ( expl ai ni ng the pr oof nec es s aryt o es t abl i s h know i ng p o sses sion ). - 6 - T he di s t r i ctcour ts ent ence d M r . Schaefert o 70 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm enton cou nt 1, t o run co ncu rr entl yw i t h a 7 0-m on th sentence fo r count 2. T he co urtal so iss u e d c o n c u rre n t term s o f th re e y e a rs’ su p e rv ise d re lea se . M r. S c h a e fe r filed th is tim e ly ap p e a l. I I . DI S CU S S I ON M r . Schaeferm ai nt ai ns t hatw e mustr ever s e hi s convi ct i on forpos s es s i on and r ece i ptof chi l d por nogr aphybeca us e the governm entpr oduced i ns uffi ci ent evi dence on t he i nt er s t at e nexus r equi r ementof §§ 2252( a) ( 2) ( r ece i pt ) and ( a) ( 4) ( B ) ( pos s es s i on) . A ccor di ng t o M r . Schaefer , t he compl et e abs ence of pr oof att r i al t hatt he i m ages he pos s es s ed and r ece i ved tr avel ed ac r os s s t at e l i nes r equi r es an ac qui t t al , as t he j ur i s di ct i onal nexus i s an es s ent i al el ementof the s ta tu te . O rdi nari l y , w e con strue a chall eng e t o the suffi ci encyof the evidence as a q u e s tio n o f

la w re v ie w e d d e n o v o . Un itedS ta tes v . C h a v is , 461 F. 3d 1201, 1207 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 7 S . C t. 20 6 2 (2 0 0 7 ). W e v iew th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o ra b le to th e g o v e rn m e n t, Uni t ed Stat es v. Tri ana , 477 F. 3d 1 1 8 9 , 1 1 9 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), cer t . deni ed , 127 S. C t . 2928 ( 2007) , “affi r m i ng t heT h e p lai n -error test requ ir es th e d efen d an t dem o n str ate: (1) an erro r; 6 (2) tha t i s p lai n an d o b v iou s u n d er e stab li sh ed law ; and (3) a ffec ts th e d efen d an t’ s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . See G oode , 4 8 3 F .3 d a t 6 8 1 (re fe re n c in g th e fa c to rs s e t fo rth in Uni t ed Stat es v. O l ano , 50 7 U . S . 72 5, 73 2 (199 3)) . If a defen dan tm eet s these con dit i on s, a cou rtm aycorr ectt he err or “i f i tser i ou sl yaffects t he fa i rness , i nt egr i t y , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” S e e id . ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ark s o m itted). - 7 - di s t r i ctcourtunl es s no [r eas onabl e] j ur y , w hen pr es ent ed w i th the evi dence i nt r oduced a tt r i al t ogetherw i t h the r eas onabl e i nfer ence s ther efr om , coul d fi nd t he defendantgui l t ybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. K i m l er , 335 F. 3d 1132, 1140 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) ( al t er at i on added) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. C ampos , 2 2 1 F . 3 d 1 1 4 3 , 1 1 5 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 )). In th is case , h o w ev er, M r. S c h a e fe r fa ile d to ra is e a n o bje c tio n , s o o u r r e v ie w is fo r p la in e rr o r. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Law r ence , 4 0 5 F .3 d 8 8 8 , 9 0 0 n .7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), cer t . deni ed , 54 6 U. S. 955 ( 2005) . W e r ece nt l yr ei t er at ed thata “for fei t ed cl ai m of i ns uffi ci entevi dence
m us tbe re v ie w e d u n d e r th e p la in -e rr o r s ta n d a rd .” Uni t ed Stat es v. G oode , 483 6 F . 3 d 6 7 6 , 6 8 1 n . 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). A. Suffi ci ency of t he E vi dence M r . Schaeferdoes notchal l enge the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ng on ei thercount w i t h r es pectt o the “know i ng” el ement s . O urr evi ew conce rns onl yw hethert he ev iden ce at tri al su ffici en tl ysati sfied the ju ri sd ict ion al ne x u s n ec essa ryto su p p o rt a c o n v ictio n u n d e r § § 2 2 5 2 (a )(2 ) a n d (a )(4 )(B ). B e c a u se th e se c tio n s c o n tain cot erm i nous j ur i s di ct i onal r equi r ement s , w e foc us i ni t i al l yon the comm on conductr equi r ed t o s ecur e a c onvi ct i on underboth the r ece i ptand pos s es s i onW e not e thatt he governm entatt empt s t o s uppor tt he pos s es s i on and 7 re c e ip t co n v ictio n s b yre ly in g o n p re c e d e n t ad d re ss in g C o n g re ss ’s a u th o rityto re g u la te p u re ly in tr a s ta te a c tiv itie s , in c lu d in g c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y . See, e. g. , Un itedS ta tes v . Je ro n im o -B a u tista , 4 2 5 F .3 d 1 2 6 6 , 1 2 6 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), c e rt. deni ed , 5 4 7 U .S . 1 0 6 9 (2 0 0 6 ); s ee als o G onz al es v. R ai ch , 545 U . S. 1, 17 ( 2005) (reg u lat ing intr astate p rod u cti o n an d p o sses sion o f il lega l dru g ). H o w ev er, M r. Schaeferdoes notchal l enge Congre s s ’ s br oad C om m er ce Cl aus e pow er s ort he cons t i tut i onal i t yof the s t atut e. I ndeed, he ac cept s t hatC ongr es s has t he br oad pow ert o r egul at e pur el yi nt r as t at e ac t i vi ty , butt hi s conce s s i on does notbearon ourr evi ew of the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence fort he j ur i s di ct i onal r equi r ement under§§ 2252( a) ( 2) and ( a) ( 4) ( B ) . M r . Schaeferfr ames hi s chal l enge a s “dec i dedl ym or e modest , ” cl ai m i ng thatt he governm entfai l ed t o pr ove an el ementof the cr i m e, w hi ch i n turn “r ender s hi s convi ct i on i nfi r m . ” See A p lt. O p e n in g B r. a t 2 2 . T h u s , Jer oni m o- B aut is ta and R ai ch are inap p o sit e a s to M r. Schaefer ’ s convi ct i on . - 8 - c o u n ts . 1. Jur i s di c t i ona l N e xus E ach secti on ’s j uri sdi ct i on al provis i on requi res t he g ov ernm ent t o est abli sh t hati n comm i tt i ng t he offens e a vi s ual i m age “ has been mai l ed, orhas been s hi pped ort r ans por t ed i n i nt er s t at e orfor ei gn comm er ce . . . byanym eans i ncl udi ng bycomput er . ” See 1 8 U . S . C . § § 2 2 5 2 (a)(2) a n d (a)(4)(B ). U l t i m at el y , t he dec i s i on t o uphol d orovertur n M r . Schaefer ’ s convi ct i ons tu rn s o n w h e th e r a n In ter n e t tran sm iss io n , sta n d in g a lo n e , sa tisfies th e in ter sta te co m m erc e re q u ir em en t of the s tatu te. M r. S ch ae fe r asse rt s tha t § 2 2 5 2 (a)’s

7 j ur i s di ct i onal pr ovi s i ons r equi r es m ovementacr os s s t at e l i nes , and i ti s not e n o u g h to a ss u m e th a t an In ter n e t co m m u n ica tio n n e c e ss a rilytra v e led a c ro ss sta te lin e s in in te rs ta te c o m m e rc e . W e a g re e .W e r eac h t hi s concl us i on under s t andi ng the l i kel yi nt er s t at e and 8 in te rn a tio n a l a rc h ite c tu re a n d o p e ra tio n o f th e w o rl d w id e w e b . See, e. g. , R eno v. ACLU, 521 U . S. 844, 849 ( 1997) ( “The I nt erneti s an i nt ernat i onal netw or k of in ter c o n n e c ted c o m p u ter s.” ). B u t w e c a n n o t as su m e th is in tu iti v e fa c t ( i . e. , a m ovementvi a the I nt ernetof chi l d- pornogr aphyi m ages betw een s t at es ) on the re c o rd b e fo re u s. N o r h a s th e g o v e rn m e n t as k e d u s to tak e ju d icia l n o tice o f th is fa c t u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f E v id e n c e 2 0 1 . A s to ju d icia l n o tice , w e re c e n tly d e c lin e d to u s e th e d o c tr in e in a c a s e in v o lv in g c o m p u te r t e c h n o lo g y . See Uni t ed Stat es v. A ndr us , 483 F. 3d 711, 721- 722 ( 10th C i r . 2007) . A j udi ci al l ynot i ced fa c t is “ o n e n o t su bjec t to re a so n a b le d isp u te in th a t itis e ith e r (1 ) g e n e ra lly know n . . . or( 2) capa bl e of a ccur at e and r eadydet erm i nat i on byr es or tt o s our ces w h o s e a c c u ra c yc a n n o t r e a s o n a b ly b e q u e s tio n e d .” F e d . R . E v id . 2 0 1 (b ). A l t hough j udi ci al not i ce maybe t aken su a sp o n te , F e d . R . E v id . 2 0 1 (c ), itw o u ld be part i cul ar l yi nappr opr i at e fort he courtt o m ake br oad as s um pt i ons aboutt he In te rn e t a b s e n t n o tic e to a n d c o m m e n t b yth e p a rt ie s . A ndr us , 4 8 3 F .3 d a t 7 2 1 . - 9 - W e h o ld tha t th e g o v ern m en t did n o t prese n t sufficien t evid en ce to su p p o rt t he j ur i s di ct i onal nexus of the § 2252( a) pr ovi s i ons ati s s ue. T heyr equi r e a m ovementbetw een s t at es . T he governm entdi d notpr es entevi dence of s uch m ovement ; i ns t ead, t he governm entonl ys how ed thatM r . Schaeferus ed the I nt ernet . W e r ecogni ze i n m any , i f notm os t , s i tuat i ons the us e of the I nt ernet w i l l i nvol ve t he m ovement of comm uni cat i ons or m at er i al s betw een s t at es . B ut 8 t hi s fac tdoes nots us pend the nee d forevi dence of thi s i nt er s t at e movem ent . T he g o v e rn m e n t o ffe re d in s u ffic ie n t p ro o f o f in te rs ta te m o v e m e n t in th is c a s e . a . S ta tu to r y A n a ly sis I n r eac hi ng t hi s concl us i on, “w e begi n . . . w i th the l anguage of the s t atut e. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Wi ls on , 182 F. 3d 737, 740 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ( quot i ng B ai l ey v . Uni t ed Stat es , 516 U . S. 137, 144 ( 1995) ) . T he pl ai n l anguage of §§ 2252( a) ( 2) and ( a) ( 4) ( B ) s peaks of m ovement- 10 -

“i n comm er ce, ” and “ gi vi ng t he w or ds us ed thei ror di narym eani ng” thi s s i gni fi es a m o v e m e n t b e tw e e n s ta te s . Uni t ed Stat es v. Hunt , 4 5 6 F .3 d 1 2 5 5 , 1 2 6 4 -6 5 (1 0 th C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ( quot i ng Mos kalv. Uni t ed Stat es , 4 9 8 U .S . 1 0 3 , 1 0 8 (1 9 9 0 )) . W e do notr ead § 2252( a) as cont empl at i ng thatthe mer e conne ct i on t o t he I nt ernetw oul d pr ovi de the i nt er s t at e movem entr equi r ed bythe s t atut e. A ft er es t abl i s hi ng a comput erorI nt ernetconnec t i on as the met hod of tr ans por t , the governm entm us ts t i l l pr ove thatthe I nt ernettr ans m i s s i on al s o m oved the i m ages acr os s s t at e l i nes . Forexampl e, bycompar i s on, w e ca nnotfi nd anypr ece dent s uppor t i ng t he not i on t hats how i ng a defendant“s hi pped” a pr os cr i bed i m age, w ith o u t m o re , sa tisfies th e sta tu to ryre q u ire m e n t. T h e g o v e rn m e n t m u st c o u p le such ev i den ce w i t h p roof t he d efen dan tshi pp ed the i m age ac ross st at e l i nes ( i . e. , in in te rs ta te c o m m e rc e ). See, e. g. , Un itedS ta tes v . Sc h a tt , N o . 9 9 - 6 3 1 7 , 2 0 0 0 WL 358460, * 2 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( unpubl i s hed) ( fi ndi ng the i nt er s t at e nexus s at i s fi ed
w h e n v id e o ta p e s s h ip p e d f ro m L o u is ia n a to O k la h o m a ). I ti s appar entt hatC ongr es s el ect ed nott o r eac h al l conducti tcoul d have r egul at ed under§ 2252( a) . C ongr es s ’ s us e of the “i n comm er ce” l anguage , as o p p o se d to p h ra sin g su c h a s “ a ffe c tin g c o m m e rc e ” o r a “ fa c ili tyo f in ter sta te comm er ce, ” s i gnal s i t s deci s i on t o l i m i tfede r al j ur i s di ct i on and r equi r e ac tual m o v e m e n t b e tw e e n s ta te s to s a tis f yth e in te rs ta te n e x u s . C ompar e Russ el lv. Uni t ed Stat es , 471 U . S. 858, 859 ( 1985) ( not i ng t erm “affec t i ng i nt er s t at e or- 11 -

forei gn com m erce” conv ey s C on gress ’s i ntentt o ex ertfull C om m erce C l ause p o w e r) , w ith Ci r c u i tCi t y S t o r e s , In c . v . A da ms , 532 U . S. 105, 115- 16 ( 2001) (n o tin g “ in c o m m e rc e ” la n g u a g e lim its C o n g re s s ’s re a c h ). T h e lan g u a g e o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 3 (th e w ire f ra u d sta tu te) , w h ich u se s “ in c o m m e rc e ” la n g u a g e v e ry si m ila r t o th a t fo u n d in § 2 2 5 2 (a ), s u p p o rt s th is v ie w . S ec ti o n 1 3 4 3 ’s “in c o m m erc e” term ino log yh as b ee n rep ea tedlyh eld to req u ir e th a t c o m m u n ic a tio n s a c tu a lly c ro s s s ta te lin e s to s u p p o rt a c o n v ic tio n . See Uni t ed S ta tes v . C a rd a ll , 885 F. 2d 656, 675- 76 ( 10th C i r . 1989) ( di s cus s i ng how “fr audt ai nt ed funds ” tr avel ed i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce a s r equi r ed bythe w i r e fr aud sta tu te) ; a c c o rdUn itedS ta tes v . D a v ila , 592 F. 2d 1261, 1263- 64 ( 5th C i r . 1979) (discu ssing the typ e o f in terst ate a cti v ityreq u ir ed u n d er w ir e f rau d statu te); Ce n t e rCa d i l l a c , In c . v . Ba n kL e u mi Tr u s tCo
. o f N. Y. , 808 F. Supp. 213, 227 (S. D . N . Y . 19 92 ) ( no t i ng t he w i re fr aud st atute r equ i res the co m m un i cat i on cross s ta te lin e s ), a

ff’d , 9 9 F .3 d 4 0 1 (2 d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( u n p u b lis h e d o p in io n ). W e ther efor e pr ocee d underthe vi ew thatC ongr es s m ade a purpos eful d e c is io n n o t to e x e rc is e its f u ll C o m m e rc e C la u s e p o w e r i n § 2 2 5 2 (a ). See gener al l y Scar bor ough v. Uni t ed Stat es , 431 U . S. 563, 571 ( 1977) ( “A s w e have pr evi ous l yobs erved, C ongr es s i s aw ar e of the di s t i nct i on betw een l egi s l at i on l i m i t ed to act i vit i es ‘ i n co m m erce’ and an assert i on of it s ful l C om m erce C l ause pow ers o as t o coveral l act i vi t ys ubs t ant i al l yaffect i ng i nt er s t at e comm er ce. ”) ( cert ai n i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. A m . B ldg.- 12 -

Maint . Indus. , 4 2 2 U. S . 2 7 1 , 2 8 0 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ) . Un d e rth i s f r a me wo r k , th e p l a i n t e r ms of § 2252( a) conveyt hatC ongr es s i nt ended t o puni s h onl ythos e w ho m oved i m ages or “m at eri al s” acr oss st at e l i nes ( i . e. , in in te rs ta te c o m m e rc e ). See, e. g. , 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 2 (a )( 2 ). I n 1988, C ongr es s amended § 2252( a) t o add the phr as e “i ncl udi ng by com pu t er. ” W e do no tcon strue this am end m ent as i nd i cat i ng that C on gress i nt ended forus e of a comput er , w i thoutm or e, t o s at i s fythe s t atut e’ s j ur i s di ct i onal r equi r ement s . C ongr es s s i m pl yw ant ed t o be “doubl ys ur e” w e r ecogni zed that t he s t atut e cont empl at es m or e than tr adi t i onal m ethods of s endi ng and r ece i vi ng im a g e s . C

f. United S tates v. A l

pers , 338 U . S. 680, 684 ( 1950) ( not i ng i n cont ext of obs ceni t ys t atut e thatC ongr es s i ns er t ed addi t i onal l anguage t o m ake c l earthe l aw r eac hed w hat , att he t i m e, w as a gr ow i ng m ot i on pi ctur e i ndus try ) . T he phr as e “i ncl udi ng bycomput er ” s peci fi es a met hod of i nt er s t at e movem ent ; the g o v e rn m e n t m u st s til l es tab lish th a t an yc o m p u ter -re late d m o v e m e n t cr o ss e d sta te l i nes . A ccor di ngl y , on t hes e fa ct s , the governm entw as r equi r ed t o pr ove thatany Intern et tran sm issi o n s co n tai n ing ch il d p o rno g rap h ythat m o v ed to o r fro m M r. S c h a e fe r’ s c o m p u te r c ro s s e d s ta te lin e s . T h e g o v e rn m e n t fa ile d to d o s o . b. C as e L aw T he governm entm ai nt ai ns t hatt he evi dence att r i al m ett he j ur i s di ct i onal el ement , as s ert i ng t hatevi dence s how i ng thatt he vi s ual i m ages “ca m e fr om t he [ I ] n t e r n e ts u g g e s t s a n o r i g i n o u t s i d e [ o f Ka n s a s ] . ” Ap l e . Br . a t9 . Ho we v e r , we- 13 -

di s cern no s uppor ti n ourcas e l aw forthe pr opos i t i on thatunder§ 2252( a) the g o v e rn m e n t n e e d n o t p ro v e th e m o v e m e n t o f th e p ro sc rib e d item s a c ro ss sta te lin e s . See, e. g. , K i m l er , 335 F. 3d at1135 ( es t abl i s hi ng thati m ages tr avel ed fr om M r. K im ler ’s h o m e c o m p u ter in K a n sa s to h is in ter n e t co m p a n y ’s s e rv e r in M iss o u ri a n d th e n o n to e m a il co m p a n y ’s s e rv e r in C a lifo rn ia) ; Wi ls on , 182 F. 3d at 74 4 & n . 4 (discu ssing b u ll eti n b o ard serv er loc ated in C ali fo rnia a n d M r. W i l s on’ s comput erl ocat ed i n C ol or ado, s o dat a “tr avel ed i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce .

. . v ia t elep h o n e li n e” ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Si mps on , 1 5 2 F . 3 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 5 (10 th C ir . 1998) ( offe r i ng evi dence t hatM r . Si m ps on dow nl oaded vi s ual i m ages vi a the In te rn e t f

ro m a w e b s ite in B o s to n o n to h is c o m p u te r i n O k la h o m a ). C f
. Uni t ed S ta tes v . Ka m m e rs e ll , 196 F. 3d 1137, 1138- 39 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ( fi ndi ng j ur i s di ct i onal el ementof 18 U . S. C . § 875( c) s at i s fi ed w hen A O L i ns t antm es s age tra v e led f

ro m se n d e r in U tah to A O L se rv e r in V irg in ia a n d b a c k to re c ip ien t in U tah). T he ca s e l aw i n ourci r cui tthatthe governm entr el i es upon does not a d v a n c e its c a u s e . See United S tates v. B ass , 4 1 1 F . 3 d 1 1 9 8 , 1 2 0 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), cer t . deni ed , 5 4 6 U .S . 1 1 2 5 (2 0 0 6 ); K i m l er , 3 3 5 F .3 d a t 1 1 3 9 , 1 1 4 0 n .8 . T he hol di ngs i n K i m l er and B ass ar e pr edi cat ed on cha l l enges di s t i nctfr om the j ur i s di ct i onal chal l enge pr es ent ed her e, and nei therhol di ng r eac hes as faras theIn a d d iti o n , the g o v e rn m e n t’s re lian c e o n o u r u n p u b lish e d o p in io n in 9 Uni t ed Stat es v. Wol l et , N o. 03- 5113, 2006 W L 137404 ( 10th C i r . J an. 19, 2006) i s m i s pl ace d. M r . Schaeferhas att ache d t o hi s R epl yB r i ef port i ons of the appel l at e fi l i ngs i n t he Wol l etc a s e , w h ic h w e a re p e rm itte d to n o tic e . See, e. g. , Uni t ed Stat es v. A hi dl ey , 486 F. 3d 1184, 1192 n. 5 ( 10th C i r . 2007) . I n Wol l et , t he governm enti nt r oduced e vi dence t endi ng t o es t abl i s h thatanycomm uni cat i ons th a t M r. W o lle t r e c e iv e d o r t ra n s m itte d v ia th e In te rn e t m o v e d a c ro s s s ta te lin e s . I n par t i cul ar , t he governm entpr es ent ed document aryand t es t i m oni al evi dence es t abl i s hi ng t hatM r . W ol l etus ed A m er i ca O nl i ne ( A O L ) as hi s I nt ernetpr ovi der fora comput ert hatw as l ocat ed i n O kl ahoma and, s i gni fi cant l y , i ts pons or ed tes tim o n yo f

a n A O L re p re se n tativ e w h o a v e rre d th a t A O L ro u tes a ll tr a n s m is s io n s th ro u g h th e c o m p a n y ’s s e rv e rs in V ir g in ia . See A p lt. R e p ly B r., A tt ac h m en t 2 at 6 , 1 3 & A tt ac h m en t 3 at 1 0 -11 . A n d , fu rth er, th e g o v ern m en t’ s ev iden ce co n sist ing in p art of M r. W o ll et’s ad m issi o n s an d h is son ’s i ncr i m i nat i ng t es t i m onyconfi r m ed thatM r . W ol l etus ed thatA O L I nt ernet c o n n e c tio n to d o w n lo a d c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y . Wol l et , 2 0 0 6 W L 1 3 7 4 0 4 at *3 . It w as i n t hi s s peci fi c fa ctual cont ext– w her e anyI nt ernett r ans m i s s i ons per for ce m oved ac r os s s t at e l i nes – t hatw e tr eat ed evi dence of the dow nl oadi ng of i m ages fr om t he I nt ernetas s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h the i nt er s t at e- comm er ce j ur i s di ct i onal c o m p o n e n t o f

§ 2 2 5 2 (a ). In th is re g a rd , w e sta ted : “T h e ju ryc o u ld ra tio n a lly have c oncl uded W ol l etdow nl oaded the i m ages fr om t he I nt ernett o the di s ket t es and thus , t he i m ages ( t he gr aphi c fi l es ) tr avel ed i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce. ” Id. In contr as t , t he governm ent ’ s evi dence her e di d notes t abl i s h a nec es s arym ovement of M r . Schaefer ’ s I nt ernetcomm uni cat i ons acr os s s t at e l i nes . A ccor di ngl y , pr oof of M r . Schaefer ’ s us e of the I nt ernet , s t andi ng al one, w i l l nots uffi ce. - 14 - go vernm ent assert s. 9 I n K i m l er , M r. K im ler did n o t con testthe g o v ern m en t’ s ev iden ce that ev ery tra n sm iss io n f

ro m a n d to h is c o m p u ter “ n e c e ss a rily ” tra v e led in in ter sta te comm er ce vi a t el ephone l i nes orthathe r ece i ved i m ages s entvi a the I nt ernet “ac r os s s t at e l i nes . ” K i m l er , 335 F. 3d at1138. M or eover , i n K i m l er , s uffi ci ent e v id e n c e e x iste d to d e m o n stra te th a t th e p ro sc rib e d im a g e s a c tu a llyc ro ss e d sta te lin e s b yv ir tu e o f

th e In te rn e t. Id . (sh o w in g im a g e s tra v e led f ro m “ H o tm a il” s erveri n C al i forni a thr ough M i s s our i t o M r . K i m l er ’ s hom e i n K ans as ) . A s for- 15 -

B ass , ourhol di ng di d nottur n on the evi dence conce rni ng the j ur i s di ct i onal c o m p o n e n t o f

th e s ta tu te , w h ic h w e re v ie w h e re . In s te a d , B ass i nvol ved the s ta tu te ’s “ k n o w in g p o s s e s s io n ” e le m e n t. See B ass , 4 1 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 0 1 -0 2 . In a n sw e rin g th e q u e stio n w h e th e r a d e fe n d a n t’s u se o f th e In ter n e t, w i t houtm or e, i s s uffi ci entpr oof of § 2252( a) ’ s j ur i s di ct i onal nexus , w e have not b e e n a b l e t o d r a w u p o n a we a l t h o f a u th o r i tyf

r o m o th e rc o u r t s o f

a p p e a l s . S o me ci r cui t s , how ever , have a ddr es s ed the ques t i on orr el at ed ones . W e r ecogni ze th a t, at lea st u p o n c u rso ryin sp e c tio n , this lim ited u n iv e rse o f c irc u it au th o rity a p p e a rs to u n ifo rm ly re fle c t th e v ie w th a t I n te rn e t u s e is s u ffic ie n t p ro o f. See Uni t ed Stat es v. MacEw an , 4 4 5 F .3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), cer t . deni ed , 12 7 S. C t . 208 ( 2006) ( adopt i ng a mode of anal y s i s , under18 U . S. C . § 2252A , that d ire c tlye q u a tes In ter n e t u se w ith in ter sta te c o m m e rc e ); Un itedS ta tes v . C a rr o ll , 1 0 5 F .3 d 7 4 0 , 7 4 2 (1 st C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (s tatin g th a t tran sm iss io n o f p h o to g ra p h s v ia t he I nt erneti s “t ant amount t o” movi ng them t hr ough i nt er s t at e comm er ce for p u rp o s e s o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 1 (a )) . C f. Uni t ed Stat es v. R unyan , 290 F. 3d 223, 242 ( 5t h C i r . 2002) ( as s um i ng w i t houtdi s cus s i on thatus e of the I nt ernetm aybe equat ed w i t h a movem enti n i nt er s t at e comm er ce a nd, as t o pr os ecut i on under r el at ed chi l d- por nogr aphys t atut e, 18 U . S. C . § 2252A , hol di ng that“the G overnm entm us tm ake a s peci fi c conne ct i on betw een the i m ages i ntr oduced a t tr ia l a n d th e In te rn e t to p ro v id e th e re q u is ite ju ri s d ic tio n a l n e x u s ” ). H ow ever, t he true p i cture i s m ore com pli cat ed. F or exam ple, the F i rs t- 16 -

C i r cui t ’ s deci s i on i n C a rr o llactual l yoffe r s l i t t l e s uppor tforthe pr opos i t i on that I nt ernetus e, s t andi ng al one, i s s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h the j ur i s di ct i onal el ementof § 2 2 5 2 . C a rr o lli s fac t - depende ntand di s t i ngui s habl e. T he governm ent p ro s e c u te d M r. C a rr o ll u n d e r a n o th e r c h ild p o rn o g ra p h ys ta tu te , 1 8 U .S .C . § 22 51 (a) , w hich prohibi t s in tera lia ( a ) p e r s u a d i n g a m i n o rt o e n g a g e i n s e x u a l l yexpl i ci tconduct , ( b) fort he purpos e of pr oduci ng a vi s ual depi ct i on of that conduct , and ( c) w i t h t he know l edge orr eas on t o know thatthe depi ct i on w i l l be tr a n s p o rt e d in in te rs ta te c o m m e rc e . See C a rr o ll , 1 0 5 F .3 d a t 7 4 1 -4 2 ; 1 8 U .S .C . § 2251( a) . T he governm enti nt r oduced e vi dence pert i nentt o the j ur i s di ct i onal r equi r ement s of thats t atut e – s peci fi cal l y , evi dence thatM r . C arr ol l had the i nt ent to m o v e th e im a g e s a c ro s s s ta te lin e s . Id . at 7 4 2 . It sh o w e d th a t M r. C a rro ll pl anned t o t r avel t o M as s achus et t s w i th the pornogr aphi c phot ogr aphs thathe had t aken i n N ew H ampshi r e of the mi norvi ct i m ; once i n M as s achus et t s , hi s obj ect i ve w a s to d is s e m in a te th e p h o to g ra p h s v ia th e In te rn e t b ym e a n s o f h is c o m p u te r. M r . C arr ol l r epor t edl ypl anned t o us e the phot ogr aphs t o s t ar tan I nt ernetdat i ng s e rv ic e . Id. a t 7 4 3 . I n t hi s fac tual cont ext , t he courtobs erved that“[t ] r ans m i s s i on of ph otographs bym eans of t he Int erneti s t antam ou nt t o m ov i ng ph otographs across s t at e l i nes and thus cons t i tut es t r ans por t at i on i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce. ” C a rr o ll , 105 F. 3d at742. G i vi ng t he quot ed l anguage i t s m os tr eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i on, t he courtw as s i m pl yacknow l edgi ng that , gi ven M r . C arr ol l ’ s w i l l i ngnes s t o m ove- 17 -

t he phot ogr aphs acr os s s t at e l i nes , hi s us e of a n i ns trum ent al i tythatw as unques t i onabl ycapa bl e of a ccompl i s hi ng thi s t as k – the I nt ernet– w as “t ant amount ” t o a movem entacr os s s t at e l i nes . Si gni fi cant l y , the C a rr o llco u rt nev er quest i on ed thatt here i n fac thad t o b e an int enti on t o m ov e t he p ho t og raphs “ac r os s s t at e l i nes ” – as oppos ed t o s i m pl yan i nt ent i on t o pl ace them on t he In te rn e t. A c c o rd in g ly, C a rr o lldoes notl end much supportt o the vi ew thatpr oof of I nt ernetus e, al one, i s s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h the j ur i s di ct i onal el ementof § 2 2 5 2 (a ). S tand ing m o re d ir ec tl yfo r th is pro p o sit ion , h o w ev er, i s the T h ir d C ir cu it ’s deci s i on i n MacEw an , w i t h w hi ch w e mustr es pect ful l ydi s agr ee. T he MacEw an a p p ro a c h ru n s c o u n ter to th e p lain ter m s o f § 2 2 5 2 (a ). T h e re , the c o u rt h e ld th a t, gi ven the i nt er s t at e cha r act erof the I nt ernet , a conne ct i on t o a w ebs i t e s erveror re q u e st fo r a n im a g e f ro m a se rv e r v ia th e In ter n e t in v a ria b lyin v o lv e s d a ta m o v in g in in te rs ta te c o m m e rc e . Id. T hu s, i tcon cl ud ed thati n o rdert o est abli sh t he j ur i s di ct i onal el ementof 18 U . S. C . § 2252A ( a) ( 2) ( B ) – a chi l d- pornogr aphy s t atut e w i t h j ur i s di ct i onal l anguage i dent i cal i n m at er i al r es pect s t o thatof § 2 2 5 2 (a ) – th e g o v e rn m e n t n e e d o n lyp ro v e th a t th e d e fe n d a n t u se d th e In ter n e t in re la tio n to th e o ffe n s e . Id. at244. T he MacEw an cour t , how ever , over l ooked the l i m i t i ng j ur i s di ct i onal la n g u a g e th a t C o n g re s s e m p lo y e d , i . e. , the “ in c o m m e rc e ” lan g u a g e . In e ffe c t, i t r eca s tt he j ur i s di ct i onal r equi r ementof the chi l d- pornogr aphys t atut e i nt o one that- 18 -

coul d be s at i s fi ed byus e of a n “i nt er s t at e fa ci l i ty , ” and de t erm i ned thatthe In te rn e t w a s s u c h a fa c ility. Id . at245 ( r efe rr i ng t o the I nt ernetas “an i ns t rum ent al i t yand cha nnel of i nt er s t at e comm er ce” ) . C ons equent l y , i tdi d not i nsi ston proof

t hat the p art i cularchil d-porno graphyi m ages crossed st at e l i nes, onl ypr oof thatt he defendant“dow nl oaded thos e i m ages fr om the I nt ernet . ” Id. H o w e v e r, th e ter m “ in ter sta te fa c ili ty ” (o r sim ilar te rm s) is n o tice a b ly abs entfr om § 2252( a) , as w el l as the s t atut e di r ect l yati s s ue i n MacEw an , § 2 2 5 2 A (a )( 2 )( B ). C

f. 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 8 (a ) (c rim in a lizin g th e u se o f “ a n yfa c ili ty o f i n t e r s t a t e o rfo r e i g n c o mm e r c e ” i n th e c o mm i s s i o n o f a mu r d e r - fo r - h i r e ) . As not ed, C ongr es s coul d have us ed l anguage i n § 2252( a) thatw oul d have e ffe ct ed a m or e expa ns i ve exe r ci s e of i t s C om m er ce Cl aus e pow er s than ac compl i s hed by th e “ in c o m m e rc e ” la n g u a g e ; yet , it e le c te d n o t to d o s o . I n s um , ourr evi ew concl udes thatunderthe pl ai n t erm s of § 2252( a) , and ourpr ece dent , t her e i s no “I nt ernetexce pt i on” t o the s t atut e’ s j ur i s di ct i onal re q u ire m e n ts. S im p lysta ted , w e d e c lin e to a ss u m e th a t In ter n e t u se a u to m a tica lly e q u a tes w ith a m o v e m e n t ac ro ss sta te lin e s. W ith re sp e c t to su c h in ter sta te m o v e m e n t, th e g o v e rn m e n t m u st in tro d u c e su fficie n t ev id e n c e to sa tisf yits bur den of pr oof. 2. Evi de nt i ar y Suffi c i e nc y: R e c e i pt and Pos s e s s i on Convi c t i ons K eepi ng i n m i nd ourhol di ng thatpr oof of us e of the I nt ernet , s t andi ng al one, does nots at i s fyt he j ur i s di ct i onal r equi r ement s of §§ 2252( a) ( 2) andT he governm entdoes notatt empt t o bas e an a r gum enti n s uppor tof 10 M r . Schaefer ’ s convi ct i ons on t he movem enti n i nt er s t at e comm er ce of any “ m a ter ials ” u se d to p ro d u c e th e p o rn o g ra p h ic im a g e s. N o r d id it ad v a n c e th is t heoryof pr os ecut i on att r i al . A ccor di ngl y , w e nee d notdi r ect l yaddr es s t he “mat er i al s ” componentof the s t atut e i n anal y zi ng the s uffi ci encyof the j uri sdi ct i on al evidence to supp ortM r. S chaefer’ s conv i ct i on s. - 19 - (a)(4)(B ), w e n o w sep ara tel yan aly ze the s u ffici en cyo f th e g o v ern m en t’ s evidence co ncerni ng M r. S chaefer’ s r ecei pt and po sses si on con vict i on s. T hese convi ct i ons cannots t and bec aus e the governm entfai l ed t o pr es ents uffi ci ent e v id e n c e c o n c e rn in g th e m o v e m e n t o f th e c h ild -p o rn o g ra p h yim a g e s a c ro ss sta te l i nes. 10
a. R ece i pt C onvi ct i on A s t o t he r ece i ptcount , w e agr ee w i th M r . Schaefert hatt he governm ent neede d t o pr ove the vi s ual i m ages he r ece i ved on hi s comput ervi a the I nt ernet m oved ac r os s s t at e l i nes . B eca us e the governm entpr ovi ded no r el evantevi dence t o m eett hi s es s ent i al el ement , t he convi ct i on cannots t and. M or e s peci fi cal l y , unl i ke K i m l er , Wi ls on , Si mps on , o r Ka m m e rs e ll, the governm entoffe r ed no evi dence her e on: ( 1) t he s erverl ocat i ons of the w ebs i t es t hatM r . Schaefers ear ched; or( 2) t he s erverl ocat i on of M r . Schaefer ’ s I nt ernet s ervi ce pr ovi der . N ordi d t he governm entt r avel dow n anyof the my r i ad other conce i vabl e paths of pr oof t o es t abl i s h the movem entof the pornogr aphi c i m ages acr os s s t at e l i nes . A ccor di ngl y , w e mustconcl ude thati ns uffi ci entevi dence e x is ts to s u p p o rt M r. S c h a e fe r’ s c o n v ic tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 2 (a )( 2 ).- 20 - b. P os s es s i on C onvi ct i on Si m i l ar l y , t he governm ent ’ s pr oof i s i ns uffi ci entr egar di ng the pos s es s i on count . T he governm entpoi nt s t o s ever al fac t s t o s uppor ti t s pos i t i on: fi r s t , t he evi dence t hatM r . Schaefervi s i t ed I nt ernets i t es t hats ol d chi l d pornogr aphy , and d o wn l o a d e d c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h yt o h i s c o mp u t e r ; s e c o n d , t h e e v i d e n c e t h a tt h e CD s found i n hi s pos s es s i on w er e t echni cal l ycapa bl e of a cce pt i ng dow nl oaded m at eri al s ( i . e. , t heyw ere “r ew ri t able”) ; and t hir d, t he C D s, am on g o ther things, cont ai ned for ei gn- l anguage m ovi e cl i ps of chi l d pornogr aphyt hatw er e embedded
w ith In ter n e t w e b site a d d re ss e s, a n d a n im a g e o f a y o u n g g irl, w h o p re su m a b ly had heri m age on the I nt ernetbeca us e s he w as fami l i art o l aw enfor cementfr om o th e r c h ild p o rn o g ra p h yin v e s tig a tio n s . T he governm entm ai nt ai ns t hatt hi s evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h t he in ter sta te c o m m e rc e e lem e n t b e c a u se it p e rm itt e d a re a so n a b le fa c t-fin d e r to det erm i ne thatt he i m ages of chi l d pornogr aphyon the C D s w er e obt ai ned fr om the In terne t. F o r th e re aso n s d iscu ssed ab o v e, ho w ev er, th e g o v ern m en t’ s ar gum ent s ar e bas ed upon a faul tyl egal pr emi s e: i tw as notenough fort he governm entt o pr ove thatt he chi l d- pornogr aphyi m ages on the C D s w er e obt ai ned f r o m th e I n t e r n e t . T h e g o v e r n me n tn e e d e d t o p r o v e t h a tt h e i ma g e s o n t h e CD s m oved betw een s t at es . E ven i f w e ana l y ze the governm ent ’ s ar gum ent s undert he corr ectl egal fr amew or k, t he governm ent ’ s pr oof w as vi r tual l ynon- exi s t enton th is p o in t.- 21 -

In th is co n n ec ti o n , o u r Wi ls on d e c is io n is in s tru c tiv e . See Wi ls on , 182 F. 3d at744. M r . W i l s on w as pr os ecut ed under§ 2252( a) ( 4) ( B ) . A governm entagent t es t i fi ed att r i al t hats om e of the chi l d- pornogr aphyi m ages found on comput er d i s k s i n Mr . Wi l s o n ’ s p o s s e s s i o n o r i g i n a t e d f r o m a G e r m a n m a g a z i n e . We concl uded thatt hi s t es t i m ony , s t andi ng al one, w as i ns uffi ci entt o s at i s fythe s ta tu te ’s ju ri s d ic tio n a l n e x u s . Id. W e r eas oned thatthe governm entm us tpr ove th a t th e sp e c ific im a g e s e n d e d u p o n th e d isk s th ro u g h a m o v e m e n t in in ter sta te comm er ce. I n t hi s r egar d, w e s t at ed:

[The governm entagent ] offe r ed no expl anat i on . . . as t o how th o se p a rticu lar im a g e s fo u n d th e ir w a yto th e d isk e ttes in defe nd ant’ s possess i on . N or di d the prosecut i on otherw i se at t empt t o out l i ne the pos s i bl e met hods byw hi ch defendant coul d have obt ai ned the fi l es thr ough i nt er s t at e comm er ce ( e. g. , obt ai ni ng copi es of the G erm an magazi nes and s canni ng t he i m ages i nt o hi s comput er ; dow nl oadi ng copi es of the i ma g e s f r o m an out - of

- s tat e comput ervi a the Int er net. . . etc.) . Id. (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). L i kew i s e, even i f w e as s um e arguendo thatthe i m ages appea r i ng i n the for ei gn- l anguage m ovi e cl i ps and the i m age of the y oung gi r l or i gi nat ed out s i de of the St at e of K ans as ( l i ke the i m ages fr om the G erm an magazi ne i n Wi ls on ) , t he governm entoffe r ed no pr oof thatthe part i cul ari m ages on the C D s i n ques t i on m o v ed ac ross stat e li n es. In p arti cu lar, the g o v ern m en t offe red n o p roo f th at M r. Schaeferacc es s ed the i m ages t hr ough an in tersta te I nt ernetconnec t i on and ei ther dow nl oaded them di r ect l yt o t he C D s ordow nl oaded them t o hi s comput erandInd ee d , the g o v ern m en t offe red n o so li d p roo f li n k ing M r. S ch ae fe r’s 11 us e of the I nt ernet– w hetheri nvol vi ng an i nt er s t at e conne ct i on ornot– t o the p o rn o g ra p h ic im a g e s o n th e C D s. F o r e x a m p le, th e g o v e rn m e n t m a d e n o e ffo rt to s how t hatt he s peci fi c i m ages s t or ed on M r . Schaefer ’ s comput eral s o appea r ed on t he C D s. - 22 - l at er t ransferred t hem t o t he C D s. 11 A ccor di ngl y , w e mustconcl ude thatt he governm ent ’ s j ur i s di ct i onal pr oof reg ard ing the p o sses sion co u n t w as in su ffici en t t o su p p o rtM r. S ch ae fe r’s c o n v ic tio n . B . P l ai n E rror St andard W e have concl uded thatt he j ur i s di ct i onal l anguage of §§ 2252( a) ( 2) and ( a) ( 4) ( B ) unambi guous l yr equi r es t he movem entacr os s s t at e l i nes of the s t atut or i l y - pr os cr i bed i t ems. T hus , t he di s tr i ctcourtcomm i t t ed cl earand obvi ous e rr o r i n fin d in g M r. S c h a e fe r g u ilty w ith o u t e v id e n c e o f s u c h m o v e m e n t. See Uni t ed Stat es v. A hi dl ey , 486 F. 3d 1184, 1193 ( 10th C i r . 2007) ( “foc us i ng on t he unambi guous l anguage of the s t atut e” i n hol di ng underpl ai n- err orr evi ew t hat “[ d ]esp it e the p rese n ce o f c o n tr aryau tho ri tyin o ther c ir cu it s” th e d istri ct co u rt ’s err ori n di s cerni ng t he r es t i tut i on s t atut e’ s r equi r ement s w as “err orof an obvi ous natur e”) . I n G oode , w e a ffirm ed that itw il l be th e e x tr ao rdin aril yrare c ase w h ere e rro r th a t is p re d ica ted u p o n th e in su fficie n c yo f th e e v id e n c e w ill n o t ad v e rse ly a ffe c ta d e fe n d a n t ’ s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s a n d s e r i o u s l y a ffe c tt h e fa i rn e s s , i n t e g r i t y, o r p u b lic re p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p ro c e e d in g s . See G oode , 4 8 3 F .3 d a t 6 8 1 n .1 ( di s cus s i ng “the noncontr over s i al pr opos i t i on thata convi ct i on i n the abs ence ofA m ong ot hert hi ngs , i n G oode , t her e ac tual l yw as evi dence i n the 12 r ecor d t o es t abl i s h j ur i s di ct i on w i th r egar d t o the cha r ged offens e. 483 F. 3d at 682. I n t he chi l d- por nogr aphyar ea, ourr el evantcas es ( i ncl udi ng thos e r el i ed up on byt he g ov ernm ent) al so refl ectt hat there w as r ecord ev i den ce t o est abli sh th e re q u is ite ju ri s d ic tio n a l n e x u s . See, e. g. , K i m l er , 3 3 5 F .3 d a t 1 1 3 5 ; Wi ls on , 1 8 2 F .3 d a t 7 4 4 & n .4 ; see also , supra , not e 9 ( di s cus s i ng Wol l et). In c o n tra st, t he governm entoffe r ed no pr oof her e conc erni ng the path the chi l d- pornogr aphy i m ages t ook befor e appe ar i ng on the tw o C D s ( i n part i cul ar , no pr oof thatt hey m o v e d b e tw e e n s ta te s ). - 23 - su fficie n t ev id e n c e o f g u iltis p lain lya n e rro r, cle a rlyp reju d ice d th e d e fe n d a n t, and al m os tal w ay s cr eat es m ani fes ti nj us t i ce” ) . T hi s i s nots uch a r ar e ca s e. 12 C o n se q u e n tly , w e n o tice th e ju risd ictio n a l er ro rs in M r. S c h a e fe r’s tw o c h ild p o rn o g ra p h yc o n v ic tio n s a n d c o n c lu d e th a t th o s e c o n v ic tio n s c a n n o t s ta n d . I I I . CO NC L US I ON Fort he r eas ons not ed above , w e conc l ude thatt he governm entpr es ent ed insu ffici en t pro o f to estab li sh the ju ri sd ict ion al ba sis fo r M r. S ch ae fe r’s c o n v ictio n s u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § § 2 2 5 2 (a )(2 ) a n d (a )(4 )(B ). In p a rticu lar , w e h o ld th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t’s e v id e n c e c o n c e rn in g M r. S c h a e fe r’s u se o f th e In ter n e t, st and i ng al on e, w as i nsuffi ci ent t o sat i sfyt he jur i sdi ct i on al requi rem ents of these s t a tu t e s . U n d e rp l a i n - e r r o rr e v i e w , w e n o t i c e t h e r e s u l t i n g e rr o r s . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e R EV ER SE t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s cr i m i nal j udgm entand RE M AND t o the d is tr ic t c o u rt fo r t h e e n tr yo f a n o rd e r o f

a c q u itta l.0 6 -3 0 8 0 , Uni t ed Stat es v. Schaef er TY M KOVI CH , J . , concurr i ng.

I c o n c u r in th e o p in io n b u t w rite s e p a ra telyto m a k e tw o p o in ts. T h e first is abo ut the Int ernet . T he d evelopm ent and g row th o f t he Int ernetov er the p ast fi ft een y ear s compl i cat es t he s t atut oryanal y s i s i n thi s cas e. W e al l know now t hat vi rtuall yeveryt ransm i ssi on ov er the Int ernet(es pecial l yw eb si t e access) c ro s s e s s ta te b o u n d a ri e s , a n d q u ite o f te n in te rn a tio n a l b o rd e rs . See, e. g. , T. B o n n e tt, I

s I SP
- B ound Traf

f i c LocalorInt ers tat e? , 53 Fed. C om m . L . J . 239, 264- 6 8 (M a rc h 2 0 0 1 ). In th is c a se , I h a v e n o d o u b t th e im a g e s tra v e led a c ro ss sta te and nati on al bo rder s. H avi ng s ai d t hat , t he s t atut e of c onvi ct i on, 18 U . S. C . § 2252( a) ( 2) and ( a) ( 4) , r equi r es evi dence of s uch a tr ans m i s s i on. T he governm entas s er t s t hatt he r ecor d cont ai ned s uch evi dence , but , as t he opi ni on demonstr at es , i tdi d not . N or h a s th e g o v e rn m e n t as k e d u s to tak e ju d icia l n o tice o f th e u b iq u ito u s in ter sta te n a tu re o f

th e In ter n e t. G iv e n th e a rc h itec tu re o f th e In ter n e t, i t is v a n ish in g ly r emot e thatan i m age di d notcr os s s t at e l i nes . A nothercas e mayw el l be a candi dat e forj udi ci al not i ce of t hi s i s s ue. M ys econd poi nti s aboutt he evi dence i n thi s cas e. T ypi cal l y , t he evi dence of the i nt er s t at e el ementi s r eadi l ypr es ent ed byt he pr os ecut i on, orcan be gl eane d fr om t he r ecor d. M os tI nt ernetcas es , forexampl e, i ncl ude t es t i m onyr egar di ng t he l ocat i on of the s erver s acc es s ed bydefe ndant , ors om e otherevi dence t hat- 2 -

re v e a ls th e in te rs ta te c h a ra c te r o f th e p a rt ic u la r t ra n s m is s io n s a t is s u e . S e e , e .g ., Uni t ed Stat es v. Wol l et , 164 F. A pp’ x 672 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( i nt er s t at e movem ent of i m ages coul d be i nferr ed bec aus e O kl ahoma r es i dentus ed A O L as hi s I nt ernet s ervi ce pr ovi derand al l A O L s erver s ar e l ocat ed out s i de the s t at e) . T hi s i s not su ch a c ase . A n d fo r th at reaso n , I m u st r eluc tantlyco n clud e tha t th e e v iden ti ary fa i l u r e c o n s t i tu t e s p l a i n e r r o ru n d e ro u rc a s e l a w.