# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 42 95

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ry an Mi ch ael Mo be rg

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J effe rs on Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 15 , 20 17 Fil ed : Ap ril 27 , 20 18 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , KELL Y and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Fo ll owi ng a two -d a y tri al

, a jury co nv ic te d Ry an Mo be rg of on e co un t of

rece iv in g ch il d po rn og rap hy, i n vi o l at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2) , a nd on e co un t
of po ss es si ng ch il d po rn og rap h y, i n vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 4) (B). Thed i s t r i c t co ur t se nt en ced Mo be rg to 60 m on th s in pr is on on each co un t, to ru n 1

co nc u r ren tl y

. On ap pe al

, Mo be rg arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ad m it ti ng
cert ai n st at em en ts he m ad e du rin g a n in te rv ie w wit h de te ct iv es an d in de nyin g hi s

m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al on on e o f th e two co un ts of c on vi ct io n.

I. Back gr ou nd

O n N ov em

be r 26
, 20 12
, Dete ct iv e Tracy Perk in s of th e Bo on e Co un ty,
Mi ss ou ri, Sh eri ff’s Dep art m en t Cy be r Cri m es Task Fo rce co nd uc te d an in ve st ig at io n in vo lv in g co m

pu te rs th at were u si ng a pe er-t o- pe er n et wor k k no wn as th e Gnu te ll a 2 ne two rk

. The pu rp os e of he r i n v e s t i g a t i o n was to id en ti fy In te rn et Pro to co l (IP)
ad dr es se s th at were sh ari ng ch il d po rn og rap hy. Sh e us ed sp eci al iz ed in ve st i g a t iv e

so ftwa re, whi ch at so m e po in t fla gg ed an IP ad dr es s th at was us in g th e Sh area za fil esh ari ng pr og r a m ( v e r s i on 2.6 .0.0 ) to sh are ch il d po rn og rap hy. Ove r a th ree- ho ur
pe rio d, P e r k i n s m ad e co nt act wit h th e co m pu te r as so ci at ed wit h th e fla gg ed IP
ad dr es s se ve ral ti m es , an d was ab le to do wnl oa d fo ur se pa rat e in co m pl et e vi de o fil es

. Thre e o f th e vi de os co nt ai ne d dep ic ti on s of chi ld po rn og rap hy, and on e was fro m a kn own ch il d p or no gr ap hy seri es id en ti fie d a s t he Jen ny seri es

.

Law en fo rcem en t th en ob ta in ed a se arch warra nt fo r th e res id en ce at th e st reet
ad dr es s li nk ed

—b y su bs cri be r reco rd s— to th e fla gg ed IP ad dr es s. On Apr il 4, 20 13
, of fic ers ex ecu te d th e warra nt an d sei zed a co m pu te r. On th e sa m e da y , Perk in s and

an ot he r de te ct iv e vi si te d Mo be rg at hi s pl ace of em pl oym en t an d as ke d to sp eak wit h
hi m

. Dur in g a reco rd ed in te rv ie w, M ob erg a d mi t t e d th at he ha d us ed th e Sh area za fil e-s ha rin g pr og ram to do wnl oa d po rn og rap hy aft er he ha d be en dr in ki ng

. At fir st , he cl ai m ed th at whe n he cam e up on ch il d po rn og rap hy, he wou ld im m ed ia te ly de le te

The Hon or ab le St ep he n R. Bo ug h, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju d g e f o r th e 1
W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-it . Later i n t he in te rv ie w, h e ad m it te d th at he ha d v ie wed ch il d p or no gr ap hy on hi s

co m pu te r, an d th at th e la st ti m e he ha d vi ewed ch il d po rn og rap hy was 4 to 5 m on th s
pr io r to th e in te rv ie w. He al so sa id he us ed th e se arch ter m s “ Je nn y ” an d “ PTHC,”
kn ew th at th e la tt er te rm m ean t “ pr et een ha rd co re,” an d de sc rib ed th e co nt en t of on e of th e v id eo s i n t he Jen ny seri es

.

Late r, fo ren si c ex am in ers se arch ed Mo be rg ’s co m pu te r. The y f

o u n d si x th um bn ai l im ag es de pi ct in g c hi ld po rn og rap hy—in cl ud in g two fro m th e Je nn y

se rie s— in th e th um

bn ai l da ta ba se cach e. Acco rd in g to te st im on y at tri al

, th e av erag e

co m pu te r us er do es no t ha ve acce ss to th e th um bn ai l da ta ba se cach e wit ho ut th e us e of sp eci al so ftwa re. Bu t im ag es are c reat ed in th e th um bn ai l dat ab as e cach e on ly if

t h e or ig in al fil e (th e fil e th at th e th um bn ai l im ag e rel at es to ) was st or ed o n t h e

co m pu te r. If th e or ig in al fil e is no lo ng er pr es en t on th e co m pu te r, bu t th e th um

bn ai l
im ag e rem ai ns , it si m

pl y m ean s th e or ig in al fil e was de le te d, or ot he rwis e rem ov ed

. Exa m in ers al so fo un d ev id en ce of a pr ev io us in te rn et se arch us in g th e te rm “ PTHC.”
And th ey de te rm in ed th at th e Sh area z a f i l e

- sh ari ng pr og ram (v ers io n 2.6 .0.0 ) ha d
be en pr es en t on th e co m

pu te r pr ev io us ly, bu t ha d si nc e be en de le te d. The re was no

ev id en ce on Mo be rg ’s c om pu te r of th e fil es Perk in s do wnl oa d e d o n Nov em be r 26
, 20 12

.

Mo be rg wen t to tri al on on e co un t of rece ip t of ch il d po rn og rap hy on or ab ou t
Nov em be r 26
, 20 12 (Co un t 1)

, an d on e co un t of po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy on

or ab ou t Apr il 4, 20 13 (Co un t 3)

. The jury ret ur ne d gu il ty ve rd ic ts on bo th co un ts

. 2

Mo be rg ap pe al s.

Co un t 2 ch arg e d M o b erg wit h po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy on or ab ou t 2
Nov em be r 26
, 20 12
, bu t th e go ve rn m en t m ov ed to di sm is s th is co un t pr io r to tri al

. The di st ric t co ur t g ran te d t he m ot io n.

-3

-II. Dis cu ss io n

Fi r s t , M ob erg arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by al lo win g in to ev id en ce th e fo ll ow i n g: hi s ad m is si on th at he ha d pr ev io us ly vi ewed ch il d po rn og rap hy on hi s

co m pu te r, an d hi s a d mi s si on th at he was fam il ia r wit h th e Je nn y se rie s of ch il d

po rn og rap hy im ag es

. Mo be rg co nt en ds th is was ev id en ce of “ pr io r m is co nd uc t” th at

was no t pr ob at iv e an d was ad m it te d on ly to sh ow hi s pr op en si ty to act in acco rd an ce wit h th e ch arg ed co nd uc t, in vi ol at io n of Fede ral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 4( b) (1 ). “ W e

rev ie w ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v. St on g, 77 3 F.3 d
92 0, 9 23 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4)

.

As an in it ia l m at te r, we qu es ti on whe th er Mo be rg ’s ad m is si on s were ev id en ce of pr io r ba d act s, or whe th er th ey were si m pl y ev id e n c e t h a t he co m m it te d th e ch arg ed of

fen se s. See Uni te d St at es v. Sh or es , 70 0 F.3 d 36 6, 37 0– 71 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (ev id en ce of c h a r g e d co nd uc t is no t su bjec t to Ru le 40 4( b) ). Mo be rg ’s fam il ia rit y wit h th e Je nn y se rie s— in cl ud in g hi s us e of “ Je nn y ” as a se arch te rm —i s ev id en ce th at he kn owi ng ly po ss es se d or recei ve d im ag es in th at se rie s, an d t ha t h e k ne w th e im ag es de pi ct ed m in or s en ga ge d in se xu al ly ex pl ic it co nd uc t

. A s fo r Mo be rg ’s

st at em en t th at he pr ev io us ly vi ewed ch il d po rn og rap hy fro m hi s co m pu te r, he as se rts

on ly th at su ch a ge ne ral ad m is si on is no t pr ob at iv e of whe th er he kn owi ng ly rece iv ed
ch il d po rn og rap hy on Nov em be r 26
, 20 12

. Bu t Mo be rg sp ok e to la w en fo rcem en t on Apr i l 4
, 20 13
, an d du rin g th at in te rv ie w, he ad m it te d th at he ha d la st vi ewed ch il d

po rn og rap hy on hi s co m

pu te r 4 to 5 m on th s earl ie r—wh ic h is pr ob at iv e of rece iv in g ch il d p or no gr ap hy on or a bo ut Nov em be r 26 , 20 12 , as c ha rg ed in Co un t 1

.

In an y ev en t, ev en if we an al y ze th e a d mi s s i o n of th is ev id en ce un de r Ru le
40 4( b)

, we se e no ab us e of di s c r e t i o n i n th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to ad m it it

.

“ Ev i d e nc e of a cri m e, wro ng , or ot he r act is no t ad m is si bl e to pr ov e a pe rs on ’s
ch arac te r in or de r to sh ow th at on a pa rti cu la r oc cas io n th e pe rs on act ed in acco rd an ce wit h th e ch arac te r.” Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 4( b) (1 ). Howev er, ev id en ce is ad m is si bl e un de r

-4

-Ru le 40 4( b) if it is “ (1 ) rel ev an t to a m at eri al is su e,” su ch as kn owl ed ge , “ (2 ) pr ov ed

by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce, (3 ) gr eat er in pr ob at iv e va lu e th a n p r e jud ic ia l
effe ct , an d (4 ) si m il ar in ki nd an d cl os e in ti m e to th e ch arg ed of fen se .” Uni te d St at es

v. Jo ne s, 25 5 F.3 d 91 6, 91 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). Here, “ co nv ic ti on s f o r r e c e ip t an d

po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy tu rn on es se nt ia ll y th e sa m e req ui reme nt s an d

ev id en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. W or th ey , 71 6 F.3 d 11 07
, 11 13 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. W hi te , 80 6 F.3 d 63 5, 64 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )). Bo th req ui re kn owl ed ge

on th e pa rt of th e de fen da n t

. I d

. M o be rg ’s ad m is si on s th at he ha d vi ewed ch il d

po rn og rap hy on th is sa m e co m pu te r an d was fam il ia r wit h th e J e n n y se rie s were rel ev an t to bo th ch arg ed of fen se s to sh ow th at he act ed kn owi ng ly. The di st ric t co ur t
al so in st ru ct ed th e jury on th e li m it ed us e of th e ev id en ce. Mo be rg do es no t di sp ut e
t h a t t he act s he ad m it te d to were fact ua ll y si m il ar an d cl os e in ti m e to th e ch arg e d
of fen se s, an d he makes no m ean in gf ul arg um en t th at th e pr ejud ic ia l effe ct of
in tro du ci ng th e ev id en ce o ut weig he d i ts pro ba ti ve va lu e.

Nex t, Mo be rg arg ue s th e d i s t r ic t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al on Co un t 3 be cau se th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to co n vi ct
hi m of po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy. Our rev ie w of a di st ric t cou rt’s den ia l of a

m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f a cq ui tt al is de no vo , bu t we “ rev ie w a ch al le ng e to th e

su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce de fere nt ia ll y an d affi rm if an y rat io na l tri er of fact co ul d
ha ve fo un d th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of th e cri m e be y on d a reas on ab le do u b t

. ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Veg a, 67 6 F.3 d 70 8, 72 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )). “ If ev id en ce

co ns is te nt wit h gu il t ex is ts , we wil l no t rev ers e si m pl y be cau se th e f

a c t s an d th e ci rcu m st an ces m ay al so be co ns is te nt w ith som e inn oc en t ex pl an at io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Hu y ck , 84 9 F .3d 43 2, 4 41 (8t h C ir. 2 01 7) (qu ot in g Uni te d Stat es v. Griffi th , 78 6
F.3 d 1 09 8, 1 10 2 (8 th Cir . 20 15 )).

The ch arg e of po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy was ba se d on th e si x th um bn ai l
im ag es de pi ct in g ch il d po rn og rap hy th at were fo un d in th e th um bn ai l da ta ba se cach e

area of Mo be rg ’s c om

pu te r du r i n g a fo ren si c ex am in at io n. Mo be rg co nt en ds th ere

-5

-was no ev id en ce pr es en te d th at he kn ew th e im ag es were st or ed i n t h e th um bn ai l
da ta ba se cach e o r th at he was a bl e to acce ss th e im ag es

.

Howev er, th e qu es ti on fo r th e jury was no t whe th er Mo be rg kn ew th um bn ai ls
of do wnl oa de d fil es wou ld be au to m at ic al ly cre at ed an d st or ed on hi s co m pu te r, or whe th er he co ul d acce ss th os e th um bn ai ls. In ste ad

, th e rel ev an t qu es ti on was whe th er Mo be rg kn owi n g l y po ss es se d th e or ig in al fil es in th e fir st in st an ce. At tri al

, th e
go ve rn m en t pr es en te d ev id en ce th at , in or de r fo r th e th um bn ai l im ag es to be pr es en t
in th e th um

bn ai l dat ab as e cach e, a co m pu te r us er m

us t pu rp os el y sa ve or do wnl oa d

a fil e on to th e co m

pu te r’s ha rd dr iv e. See id

. at 44 3 (“ Test im on y de m on st rat ed th at
th e th um bn ai l im ag es co ul d on ly h av e ex is te d if th e fu ll -s iz e, vi ewa b l e i mages ha d
be en on th e ha rd dr iv e at so m e t i me i n 20 10

. . . . [An d al th ou gh ] th e ni ne ty-fiv e th um bn ai l im ag es on th e [co m pu te r] ha rd dr iv e w e r e n ot vi ewab le wit ho ut sp eci al

so ftwa re, th ey no ne th el es s co ns ti tu te d ev id en ce of pr io r po ss es si on of ch il d

po rn og rap hy.”). In ad di ti on , two of th e th um bn ai l im ag es were fro m th e Je nn y se rie s. Thi s ev id en ce, al on g wit h Mo be rg ’s ad m is si on s, su pp or te d th e jury’ s de te rm in at io n th at Mo be rg kn owi ng ly po ss es se d ch il d po rn og rap hy on or ab ou t Apr il 4, 20 13

. The
di st ric t co ur t d id no t er r in de nyin g M ob erg ’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al

.

III. Co nc lu si on

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-