UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-4391

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

CHRISTOPHER SCOTT CALEY, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (8:05-cr-01270-GRA-1) 

Submitted: December 2, 2009 Decided: December 14, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. 

Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Maxwell Cauthen, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Christopher S. Caley was sentenced to time served 

following his conditional guilty plea on remand to possessing 

child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) 

(2006). On appeal, Caley challenges the district court’s denial 

of his motion to dismiss his indictment for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

 We review “de novo the district court’s denial of a 

motion to dismiss an indictment where the denial depends solely 

on questions of law.” United States v. Hatcher, 560 F.3d 222, 

224 (4th Cir. 2009). Section 2252A(a)(5)(B) prohibits “[a]ny 

person” from: 

knowingly possess[ing] any book, magazine, periodical, 

film, videotape, computer disk, or any other material 

. . . that was produced using materials that have been 

mailed, or shipped or transported in interstate or 

foreign commerce by any means, including by computer.*

 *

 On October 13, 2008, one day before the superseding 

indictment was filed, § 2252A(a)(5)(B) was amended to forbid 

“[a]ny person” from “knowingly possess[ing], or knowingly 

access[ing] with intent to view” the prohibited material, and 

expanding the language concerning interstate or foreign 

commerce. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) (West Supp. 2009). To 

avoid any ex post facto implications, assessment of Caley’s 

conviction is made under the pre-amendment language of the 

statute. See Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 28 (1981) (defining 

an ex post facto law as “any law which imposes a punishment for 

an act which was not punishable at the time it was committed” 

(internal quotation marks omitted)). 

 

2 
3 

There is no dispute that Caley possessed material containing 

images of child pornography. Rather, Caley argues the 

interstate or foreign commerce requirement of § 2252A(a)(5)(B) 

could not be satisfied because there was no evidence that the 

pornographic images were produced on materials that had been 

transported interstate. Caley’s assertion lacks merit. The 

indictment clearly charged Caley with possessing images he had 

stored on his computer. We find that the pornographic images 

were “produced” for purposes of § 2252A(a)(5)(B) when they were 

copied to Caley’s computer. See United States v. Schene, 543 

F.3d 627, 638-39 (10th Cir. 2008); United States v. Anderson, 

280 F.3d 1121, 1125 (7th Cir. 2002); United States v. 

Guagliardo, 278 F.3d 868, 871 (9th Cir. 2002). We find the 

indictment was clearly adequate. 

 Accordingly, we affirm Caley’s conviction and dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED