UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4490

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT FENN,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior 

District Judge. (1:12-cr-00510-JCC-1)

Submitted: December 20, 2013 Decided: February 4, 2014

Before KING, GREGORY, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James W. Hundley, BRIGLIA HUNDLEY NUTTALL & LOPEZ, P.C., Vienna, 

Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States 

Attorney, Alicia J. Yass, Special Assistant United States 

Attorney, Lindsay A. Kelly, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

After a two-day jury trial, Robert Fenn (“Appellant”) 

was convicted of one count each of receipt of child pornography 

and possession of child pornography and was sentenced to 120 

months imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. He 

appeals, raising three contentions: (1) the district court

should have granted his motion to suppress certain statements 

because they were given during an improper custodial 

interrogation, in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 

(1966); (2) during trial, the district court erroneously 

admitted evidence of legal Hentai (sexual cartoon) images that 

were found on Appellant’s computer, in violation of Federal 

Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b); and (3) the evidence presented 

at trial was insufficient to convict Appellant. Finding no 

error, we affirm.

I.

We have reviewed the district court’s order denying 

Appellant’s motion to suppress, and we find no reversible error. 

Thus, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in 

its memorandum opinion of January 22, 2013. See United States 

v. Fenn, No. 1:12-cr-00510-JCC-1, ECF No. 17 (E.D. Va., filed 

Jan. 22, 2013). 
3

II.

As to whether the district court improperly admitted 

Hentai images stored on Appellant’s computer, we likewise 

affirm. Appellant argues these images were improperly admitted 

under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403. We review for 

abuse of discretion and note, “[d]istrict courts generally enjoy 

broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence.” 

United States v. Leeson, 453 F.3d 631, 636 (4th Cir. 2006); 

United States v. Woods, 710 F.3d 195, 200 (4th Cir. 2013).

Rule 404(b) provides, “Evidence of a crime, wrong, or 

other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in 

order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in 

accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). 

However, such evidence “may be admissible for another purpose, 

such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, 

knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” 

Id. 404(b)(2). 

Having reviewed the transcript, it is clear the images 

were properly admitted as evidence for purposes other than 

showing Appellant’s general character. They were admitted in 

accordance with this court’s decision in United States v. Queen, 

132 F.3d 991, 997 (4th Cir. 1997) (explaining that evidence of 

prior acts must be (1) relevant and not offered to establish 

general character, (2) probative of an essential claim or 
4

element of the offense, (3) reliable, and (4) the probative 

value must not be substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice). 

Further, the ruling was not in contravention of Rule 403. See

United States v. Benkahla, 530 F.3d 300, 310 (4th Cir. 2008). 

The court also gave limiting instructions as to the purpose of 

the images, explaining that they were legal, and they did not 

show “that at another time the defendant performed a similar act 

or committed a similar offense, including the offense charged in 

the indictment.” J.A. 303.* We thus find no merit in 

Appellant’s argument on this point.

III.

Appellant’s final contention on appeal is that the 

evidence at trial was insufficient to support the guilty verdict 

against him; rather, he argues that there was substantial 

evidence that Appellant’s brother and father, both of whom lived 

with Appellant, received and possessed the pornography at issue. 

In entertaining such an argument, we “construe the evidence in 

the light most favorable to the government, assuming its 

credibility, and drawing all favorable inferences from it, and 

will sustain the jury’s verdict if any rational trier of fact 

could have found the essential elements of the crime charged 

 * The “J.A.” is the Joint Appendix filed by the parties in 

this appeal. 
5

beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Penniegraft, 641 

F.3d 566, 571 (4th Cir. 2011) (emphasis in original). 

Appellant’s final contention fails. Considering the evidence 

presented at trial, a rational trier of fact could have found 

Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order 

denying Appellant’s motion to suppress and the judgment after 

trial are affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED