F OR P UB LIC AT ION


### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA ,

Plaintif f-Appellee ,

v.
D ANNY T EA GUE ,

Defendant-

Appellant

. No. 10-10276

D.C. No. 1:05-cr- 00495- L J O-1
OPI NI ON

Appea l from the United States District Court fo r t he Ea ste rn

Di str ic t of

Ca lif or nia L awr ence J . O’Ne ill, Dist rict Judge, Pre siding

Argued and Submitted Janu ary 15 , 2 01 3— San F ra

nc isc o, Ca lif

or nia Filed July 18, 2013
Be fore : A. Wallace Ta shima, Susan P. Graber , and Ray mon d C. F ish e r, Cir c uit

Judg e s. Opinion by

J udg e F isherU NI TED S T A T ES V

. T EA GUE 2

T hi s s ummary cons t i t ut es n o part of t he op i ni on of

t he cour t

. I t ha s * b een p repa red b y co urt s t af f f o r t he co nveni ence o f

t he read er. SUMMAR

Y *

Crim inal L aw The pa nel affirmed a criminal j udg ment in a case in which the def endant, who w as convic ted of both re ce i pt and possession of ch ild pornog raphy , argued that he is be ing pun is h e d tw ic e f o r th e s ame c o n d

u c t i nv io lati o no f

the Double Jeopardy

Clause. The pa nel held that the dist rict cour t erre d by enter ing judgme nt on b o t h counts absent some a ssuranc e that the convictions wer e bas ed on separate conduct. In light of the ov e rwhe lmi ngand unre butte d e vid e nc e of se pa rate c on du c t, the pane l h el dthat the er ror did not af

fec t the defe ndant’s su bs tanti a l r ig hts

.

CO UN SEL
Caro ly n D . Ph ill ip s, F re sn o, Ca lif or nia , f or De fe nd antAp pe lla nt.
Be njamin B. Wag ner, United States Attorn ey , Camil A. Skipper, Appellate Chief, a n d Br ian W. Enos (argued), Assistant United State s Attorney for the E astern D istrict of California, F resno, Califor nia, for Plaintiff- Appellee

.U NI TED S T A T ES V

. T EA GUE 3
OP IN ION
FI SHER, Ci rcuit Judge: A jury convicted Danny

Tea gue of both re ceipt and po sse ssi on

of c hil d p or

no g ra phy . B e c a

us e po sse ssi on

is a lesser inc luded offe nse of rec eipt, the convictions violate the Fifth Ame n d m ent’s Double J eopar dy Clause if they

wer e based on the same c onduct. S ee United States v. Ov erton , 573 F.3d 679, 695 ( 9th Cir. 2009). On the other hand, “ wher e se pa rate c on du ct su

pp or ts e a c h o ff

e ns e , th e F if

th Amen d me nt’s Double Jeopardy

Clause is not impl icated.” Id. The prose cutor c harg ed re ceipt of one set of files and c harg ed possession o f a much larg er se t of files. B eca use the files supporting the rec eipt co u n t wer e a subse t of the files supporting the possession char g e and the prosec utor did not reque st, nor did the district c ourt provide, an instruction expli citly requiringthe jury

to base the two c onvict i ons on separ ate c onduct, it is theoretically possible the convictions wer e base d on the same conduct. We agree with Teague that the dis tr ic t c ourt

e rr e d b y e nte ri ngjud g me nt o n b oth c ounts absent some a ssuranc e that the c onvictions were b as ed on separ ate c onduct. In light of the overwhelming a nd unre butte d e vid e nc e of

se pa rate c on du c t, h owe ver , w e ho ld th at t h e e r r o r d id n o t a f f e c t T e a gu e ’ s s u

b s ta n ti a l r igh ts

. We the re fo re a ff

ir m.
B ACKG ROUND
In N ov e mbe r 2 00 5, a

de te c tiv e de te rm ine d th at a computer owned by appellant Danny Tea gue was be ing use d to download c hild pornog raphy from the Interne t. The com p u t er w as usingthe L imeWire prog ram, a peer -to-pee r network that allows users to share files with other c omputersU NI TED S T A T ES V

. T EA GUE 4

on th e In te r

n e t. L awe n f

o r c e me n t a g e n ts e xe c u te d a s e ar ch war rant on Te ague’s house, located Te ague’s c omputer in the g ara g e an d f

o un d f il e s c o n ta in in g c h il d p o r

n o g r a p h y o nthe c o mp u te r
. T h e a g e n ts a ls o lo c ate d a b r ie f c a s e , s tored underne ath the computer d esk, conta ining 20 c ompact discs (C Ds ) c onta ini ngc hil d p or no g ra phy . B e c a

us e thi s c a se hin g e s on the dif

fe re nc e s be tw e e n the m, we br ie fl y a dd re ss the key at t ri b u t es of the files on the CDs (the CD files) and the files on the c omputer (the c omputer files).
T h e c o mp u t er

fi l es co m p ri s edap p ro x i m at el y 2 0 i m age f i l e s an d 1 1 m o v i e f

i l e s c o n t a i n i n gc h i l d

p o r n o g r a p h y. Unre futed testimony

established t h at t hey

wer e downloade d from the Interne t in 2005. The c omputer files we re store d on the har d drive of T eague’s c omputer.
Th e C D files we re loc ated on CDs conta ined in a briefc ase unde r Tea gue’s c omputer desk. The se files i n c l u d e d a p p r o x i m at e l y 7 6 0 i m a g e s o f c h i l dp o r

n o g r a p h y, sever al of which wer e duplicates. The CD files discussed at trial wer e cr eate d (i.e., save d to th e CD) in 2002 and 2003, althoug h other files ma

y have be en cr eated b ef

o re 2002 or afte r 2003. The brie fca se conta ining the CDs a lso contained rec eipts and other indicia showing that it belonge d to Teague, including doc uments addre ssed to him and documents sig ned by him. The CDs themselves also included f iles showing that the y be lon g e d to Te a gue , s uc h a s p ho tos of Te agu e and

his family that had bee n taken with a c amer a found in Te ague’s closet. The CDs a lso c ontained sexually expli cit photogr aphs of Te a gue , b e nign p ho tos of Te a gue ’s fa

mil y and e xplic it c hil d p or no g ra ph ic ima g e s th at ha d b e e n d ig ita ll y a lte re d to include Te ague.U NI TED S T A T ES V

. T EA GUE 5
Tea gue wa s char g ed with t hree counts: (1) re ceipt or distribution of material depictingthe sexual ex ploitation of minors in violation of 18 U.S.C . § 2252(a) (2); (2) possession of mate ri a l de pic tin g the se xua l e xploi tatio n of min ors in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4) (B ); and (3) production of obscene visual repr esentations of the sexual abuse of children in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a )( 1 ). Tea gue wa s convicted on a ll three c ounts, but he does notchalleng e the thi rd c ount h e re . T e a gue wa s sente nc e d to 23 0 mo nth s’ custody on Count 1 and 120 months’ custody on Count 2, the s e n t e n c e s t o r

unc o n c ur r e n t l y. S TA N D A R D O F REVIEW We reviewTea gue’s double jeopar dy claim for pla in error beca use he r aised it for the first time on appea l. See U nited Sta te s v . D av e np or t , 519 F.3d 940, 9 4 3 (9th Cir. 2008) (“ Al tho ugh w e no rm a lly

re vie w d e no vo c lai ms o f d ou ble jeopar dy violations, we revie w issues, s u ch as the prese nt on e , n ot p ro pe rl y

ra ise d b e fo re the dis tr ict c ourt fo r p la in err or.” ( citation omitted)). Under p l ain error re view, the convictions must be aff

irmed unles s : “(1) the re ha s been a n e rr or in t he pr oc e e din g s b e low ; ( 2) that e rr or wa s p la in; (3 ) i t aff ecte d substanti al rig hts; and (4) it seriously aff ecte d the fai rness, integrity , or public re putation of judicial proce eding s.” Id.
D I S CUS S I ON
Tea gue ar gues that he is beingpunished twice for the same c onduct in vio l ati on of the Double J eopar dy Clause, beca use possession (Count 2) is a lesser i n cl uded off

ense of rec eipt (Count 1). As discussed be low, the re ceipt count wa sU NI TED S T A T ES V

. T EA GUE 6 plain ly b a s e d o nth e c o mp u te r

f il e s
. T e a gu e ’ s a

p p eal there fore turns on the basis for the possession conviction.
I.
Th e F if th Ame ndme nt’ s D ou

ble Jeop ard

y Cla us e pr ote c ts a def endant f rom bei n g p unished twice f or a sing le cr iminal offe nse. See U.S. Const. amend. V. “When a de fenda nt has vi o l at ed two diffe rent c riminal statutes, the double jeopa rdy pr oh ibi tio n is imp lic ate d whe n b oth statut e s p ro hib it the same offe nse o r whe n one off

ense is a le sser include d offe nse of the other.” Da v e np or t , 519 F.3d at 943.
Possessi o n of child pornography is a lesser inc luded offe nse of rec eipt of child pornography beca use a pe rson who has re ceive d child pornog rap hy has also, by

definition, possessed it. See id. at 947. “Therefore, while the Go ve rnme nt c an in dic t and pr os e c ute a defend ant f

or bo th re ceipt and possession of child pornog raphy , enter ing judgme nt o f convic tion for both is mult iplicitous and c on sti tut ion a lly

impe rm iss ibl e wh e n b a se d o n th e same conduct.” Ove rton , 573 F.3d at 695. On the other ha nd,

“ wh e re se pa

rate c on du c t su

pp or ts e a c h of

fe ns e , the F if

th Amendment’s Double J eopar dy Cl a use is not impli cate d.” Id.
II. The g overnme nt maintains that the Double Jeopardy Cla us e is n ot i mpl ic ate d h e re b e c a us e the re c e ipt

c ount i s based on the computer files and the possession c ount is ba sed on the CD fi le s. I f s o, the c onvic tio ns are no t mu lti pli c ito us
. See U nited States v. Schale

s , 546 F.3d 965, 980 (9t h Cir. 200 8 ) ( “ [T ]h e r e w o u ld

h av e b e e nn o d o u

b le je o p ardy violation if the g overnme nt had distinctly char g ed Schale sU NI TED S T A T ES V

. T EA GUE 7

Co un t 1 cha r ged t hat T eag ue: 1
b egi nni ng on an unkno wn d at e no lat er t han o n o r abo ut M arch 5, 2 0 0 4 and co nt i nui ng t hrough o n or ab o ut N o v e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 , i n K e rn C o u n ty, w ithin the S ta te a n d E a st e r n D istric t o f C a lif o rn ia , an d e lse w h e re d id k n owi n g l y r ec ei v e an d di s t r i bu t e an y v i s u al de pi ct i on tha t ha d b e e n m a iled , ship p e d , o r tra n sp o rte d in i nt er s t at e or f

orei gn comm er ce, o r wh i ch cont ai ned with both rece ipt . . . for the imag es that he downloaded f rom the interne t and with possession . . . for the imag es that he transfe rre d to and stored on c ompact discs.”)

. Schales sets out the fra mewo rk for double jeopar dy claims like Tea gue’s a

nd, as her e, involved child pornogr aphy stored on a computer a

nd CDs. We ex plained that, “where a de fe nd ant h a s st or e d s e xua ll y e xplic it i ma g e s in se pa rate medi[a] ,” such a s on a har d drive and CDs, “the g overnme nt may c on sti tut ion a lly

c ha rg e that de fe nd ant w ithse pa rate c o un ts f o r e a c h ty p e o f mate r ia l o r me d ia p o s s e s sed.” Id. at 979. The g overnme nt did not do so i n Schales . “Instead, the indictment char g e[d] Schales with rec eipt of the mate rial by way of downloadingit from the in t er n et onto his computer and po ss ess ion of

thi s mate ri a l in the same me dium .” Id. at 98 0 ( e mph a sis a dd e d) . Sc ha le s c ou ld h ave be e n c ha rg e d w ith possession and re ceipt in diffe rent media. Be ca use he w as no t, h ow e ve r, his c onvic tio ns we re mul tip lic ito us
. The indictm en t here char g ed Te ague with re ceipt base d on the computer

files and with possession based on both the c om pu ter fi le s and

the CD fi le s. Spe c if

ic a lly , Co unt 1 char g ed t h at Teague re ceive d child pornog raphy from the Interne t using a co m puter a nd modem betwee n 2004 and 2005. Count 1 ma de no me nti on of c omp a c t di sc s and did 1U NI TED S T A T ES V

. T EA GUE 8

m a t e r i a l s t h a t h a d b e e n s o m a i l e d , s h i p ped, or t r ans po r t ed, an d t he produci ng of t he de pi c t i on i nv ol ved a mi nor en gag i ng i n s exu al l y ex pl i ci t conduc t and wa s o f s uch co nd u c t, s p eci f

i cal l y : t he d ef

end ant , us i ng a co m p ut er and m o d em , recei ved or d i st ri b ut ed vi a t he i nt er net and i nt er s t at e com merc e, at l eas t o ne vi s ual depi ct i on, whi ch t he def endan t t hen kn ew, was a v i s ual depi ct i on , t h e pr odu ci n g of w h i ch i n v ol v ed t h e u s e of
a m ino r e n g a g e d in se x u a lly e x p licit co n d u c t .

. . . Co un t 2 cha r ged t hat T eag ue: 2
b egi nni ng on an unkno wn d at e no lat er t han o n o r abo ut D ece m b er 20 0 1 and co nt i nui ng t o on o r abo ut N o v e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 , i n K e rn C o u n ty, w ithin the S ta te and E ast ern D i st ri ct o f C al i f o rni a, and el sewhere d id kn owi ng l y poss es s 1 or more mat t er s wh i ch cont ai ned any v i s u al de pi ct i on t h at h ad bee n ma i l ed, s h i pped, or t r ans po r t ed i n i nt er s t at e or f orei gn com merc e, or w hi ch
w as p ro d uc ed using m aterials w hich ha d b ee n so mai l ed, s hi pp ed, or t r ans po r t ed, t he produci ng of wh i ch i nv ol ved a mi nor en gag i ng i n s exu al l y ex pl i ci t conduc t and t he d ep i ct i o n was of s uch co nd uct , s p eci f

i cal l y : t he d efen d an t p o ssessed o n an i ntern al co m p uter ha rd d i sc dri ve and on one or mo r e di gi t al vi deos a nd/ or c om pact di s cs at l eas t one i mage f i l e wh i ch cont ai ned a vi s ual depi ct i on , t h e pr odu ci n g of w h i ch i n v ol v ed t h e u s e of
a m ino r e n g a g e d in se x u a lly e x p licit co n d u c t .

. . . no t sp e c if y 20 02 –0 3 a s the tim e fr ame duri ngwh ic h th e CD files wer e cre ated. Count 2, by contra st, charg ed that Te ague possessed child pornography “on an inter

nal computer

hard disc drive and on one or more digital videos and/or compact discs ” betwe en 2001 and 2005. 2 The indictment is an improveme nt on Schales to the e xtent it c ha

rg e d po sse ssi on in a

me dium ( CD s) fo r whic h it did no t c ha rg e re c e ipt . T hat th e g ov e rnme nt c ha rg e d s e pa rateU NI TED S T A T ES V

. T EA GUE 9

c on du c t, ho weve r, do e s n ot m e an th at th e jur y ba se d it s convictions on separ ate c onduct. Both counts ref err ed to t he computer f

iles so, in theory , t h e j u ry could have convicted under both c ounts based s o l el y on the files on Te ague’s computer, in violation o f t h e Doubl e Jeopardy Clause. Of course , it is also possi ble that the jury found re ceipt base d on the fi le s on the c omp ute r an d fou nd po sse ssi on

ba se d, at le a st in p art , o n th e fi le s o n th e CD s. The c onjunctive phra sing of the indict m en t cre ated the possibili ty

of multipli citous convictions, and n ei ther the g overnme nt nor the di strict court did any thing to re move that possibili ty

. On the contra ry , the jury

was not instructed that it h a d to fin d sep arate c on du c t, t he jur y de liv e re d a

g e ne ra l – ra the r t ha n s pe c ia l – v e rd ic t and

the g ov e rnm ent ar gue d in closingthat the computer files s upported the posse ssion c onvic tio n. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s e ntr y of jud g men t on bo th counts, absent some a ssuranc e that the co n victions were based on se parate conduc t, was er ror.
III
. Next we must determine w h ether the er ror r equire s reve rsal. To preva il on plain err or re view, Te ague must show “(1) there has been an error in the pr ocee dings be low; (2) that e r r o r w a s p l a i n ; ( 3 ) i t a f

f e c t e d s u b s t an t i a l r i g h t s ; an d ( 4 ) i t seriously aff

ecte d the fairness, i nteg rity , or publ ic re putation of judicial proc eedings.” Da v e np or t , 519 F.3d at 943. The first two requir ements ar e clea rly met. An er

ror is plain whe n it is “cl ea r” or

“obvious” unde r the law

. United States v. Olano , 5 07 U. S. 7 25 , 7 34 (1 99 3)

. Di sr e g ard of the se pa ra te conduct r equire ment was a plain err or.U NI TED S T A T ES V

. T EA GUE 10
Tea gue, howe ver, has not satisfied the third requir ement – that th e er ro r af

fec ted substantial rig hts. “[I ]n m ost cases [t his require ment] m eans that the err or mus t h av e bee n prejudicia l: It must have aff ecte d the outcome of the district court proc eeding s.” Id. Al tho ug h w e have no t e xpre ss ly c on sid e re d th e c ir c ums tanc e s und e r whic h th e fa ilure to e ns ur e that c onvic tio ns were bas e d o n s e pa ra te c on du c t is prejudici a l, w e h ave c onsidered the analog ous situation where a dis tr ic t c ourt

omi ts a ne c e ssa ry of fe ns e e le me nt f

ro m it s jur y ins tr uc tio ns
. A d istri c t c ourt ’s fa ilure to ins tr uc t on a ne c e ssa ry of fe ns e el ement “doe s not alway s ‘af fec t’ a de fenda

nt’s substantial ri g hts and

. . . th e fa il ure to su

bmi t an e le me nt t o th e jur y is no t per se prejudicia l.” Un ite d States v . A lfe ra hin , 433 F.3d 11 48 , 1 15 7 (9 th C ir . 2 00 6) . Sp e c if ic a lly , s uc h a

n e rr or a ff e c ts substantial r ights whe n “ther e is a re asonable probability the jury ’s ver dict would have be en diffe rent” had t h e j ury been proper ly instructed. United States v. J enkins , 633 F.3 d788, 80 7 (9t h Ci r. 20 11 ); see also United States v . Tuyet Thi-Bach Nguyen , 565 F.3d 668, 677 ( 9th Cir. 2009) (holding th at failure to submitan ele ment to the jury was not pre

judicial beca use the e lement had be en esta blished by

“over whelming e vid e nc e ” ); Un ite d Sta te

s v . S mi th , 2 82 F .3 d 7 58 , 7 67 –6 8 ( 9th Cir . 2 00 2) (h old ingtha

t, b e c a us e a n e le me nt e rr on e ou sly omitted from jury

instructions was undisputed, the instructional err or did not aff ect substantial r ights). We may consider f

acts log ically

impli ed b y

the fa ct of c onviction when evaluating whether an error is prejudicia l. See U nited S ta t es v
. B a ld

w in , 9 8 7 F.2d 1432, 1439 ( 9th Cir. 1993) (holdingthat a convic tion of aidingand abe tting w as t he func t ional equivalent of

a fa ctual findingthat the omitted element ha d been satisfied).U NI TED S T A T ES V

. T EA GUE 11

A n instr u c tio n o n s e p a ra te c o n d u c t w o u ld h a v e p re v e n te d the e rr o r in 3 t h i s c as e s o w e appl y t h e pr ej u di ce s t an dar d f or an omi t t ed j u r y i n s t r u ct i on here. T h a t i s no t t o s ay, how ever, t hat i t i s t he o nl y m eans by whi ch t he di s t r i ct c ou r t c ou l d h av e as s u r ed i t s el f t h at t h e con v i ct i on s we r e bas ed on se p a ra te c o n d u c t. Not instructing on an offe nse element is analog ous to not ins tr ucti ng on

se pa rate c on du c t, s o w e a do pt t he same prejudice standard here

. We hold that a fa ilure to instruct on se pa rate c on du c t a ff

e c ts s ub sta

nti a l r ig hts wh e n th e re is a rea sonable proba

bility that the j ury

would not have c onvicted on both counts had it been pr operly instructed. 3 Applying this fr amewor

k, we hold that the court’s f ailure to g ive a separ ate conduct instruction or otherwis e a ssure itself the sepa

rate conduct require ment had bee n satisfied wa s not pr ejudicial g iven the over whelmingevidenc e that Te ague possessed the CD files. The indictment separat ely char g ed Te a gue wi th p os se ssi ngthe CD fi le s. Th e CD s w e re fo un d in a br ie fc a se a lon gwi th r e c e ipt s ma de out to him , d oc ume nts addre ssed to him and documen t s s i gned by him. The briefc ase w as under

neath the d es kon which the c omputer Tea gue used to downloa d child porn o gra phy was located. T h e C D s c o n t a i n e d

b e n i g n p h o t o s o f T e a gu e an d h i s f am i l y, sex ually e xplic it p ho tos of

Te a gue and

e xplic it c hil d pornog raphic imag es that had been digitally altere d to include Tea gue. More over, the re w as unref uted evidenc e that photos on the CD s w e re take n w iththe dig ita l c ame ra that a g e nts fo un d in Te a gue ’s c los e t. T e a gue did no t c onte st a ny of the se fa c ts.
Tea gue’s only

defe nse at trial wa s that someone e lse had committ ed t h e crimes he wa s char g ed with committing. He pointed out tha t o t h er s had ac cess to the c omputer and thatU NI TED S T A T ES V

. T EA GUE 12 two of his step-g randsons ha d used it fre quently . That the jur y c onvic te d Te a gue of

re c e ivi ngc hil d p or

no g ra phy on his computer me ans it conclusively reje cted his defense , there by al s o e li mi n ati n g an y d o u b t th at T e a gu e p o s s e s s e d the CDs f o un d i nh i s b r i e f

c a s e j u s ta

f e wf e e taw ay.
In sum, the district court s h o u l dhave a ssured itself the separ ate conduct require ment was satisfied. I t c o u l dh ave done so here by g iving a jury instruction or by s o m e o ther means such as by providing the jury with a specia l v er d ict fo rm to list wh ic h fil e s supp or te d ea c h c onvic tio n. F a ilure to employ any such mea n s was e rror , but it caused Te ague no pr e j u d i c e
. T e a gu e w a s c o n v i c t e d o f r e c e i v i n gc hil d pornog raphy

on his computer and t

he over whelmingevidenc e shows that he also possesse d child pornog raphy in a diffe rent me dium – t

he CD s in

his br ie fcase. Acco rd ing ly , w e ho ld that th e e rr or

did no t a ff e c t T e a gue ’s su

bs tanti a l r ig hts

. AF F IRM ED

.