Opinion ID: 203200
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Federal Court Indictment and Conviction

Text: On July 12, 2005, a few weeks before the state court imposed its sentence, a federal grand jury indicted Rogers for one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). The indictment charged that on or about July 22, 2004, in the District of Maine, Rogers had knowingly possessed a computer that contained an image of child pornography, specifically a computer graphic image the production of which involved the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, that had been transported in interstate and foreign commerce, specifically by computer via the Internet. [1] App. 31. The federal charge was based solely on Rogers' possession of the images found on his computer, not on his sexual abuse and exploitation of the three minor children.
Rogers filed a motion to suppress all of the evidence discovered after the issuance of the first search warrant  the videotapes, the pornographic images discovered on his computer, and his incriminating statements. He argued that the first search warrant's authorization to search for and seize photos of DW encompassed solely developed print photographs and not images on a videotape or on a computer. He further argued that because the contents of the first videotape provided the basis for the second search warrant, everything discovered and seized pursuant to the second warrant should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion to suppress. She concluded that searching the computer hard drive and the videotape for photos of DW was well within the scope of the warrant because both were plausible repositories for photos of DW. App. 12. She reasoned that [g]iven the current state of technology, looking at a computer's hard drive to find photos is no more inappropriate than opening a photo album and that [c]urrent technology also permits `photos' to be stored on homemade videotapes. Id. Over Rogers' objection, the district court adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation in its entirety. App. 14-15.
On June 13, 2006, pursuant to a plea agreement, Rogers pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). However, he reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2). At the sentencing hearing, applying the 2003 version of the federal Sentencing Guidelines, the district court determined that Rogers had an offense level of 30, a criminal history category of I, and a sentencing guideline range of 97-120 months imprisonment. The court imposed the maximum sentence of 120 months imprisonment, but ordered that Rogers receive credit for the state conduct used to enhance his federal guideline range, which the court determine[d] . . . to be 1 year, resulting in a sentence of 108 months, to be served consecutive to any undischarged term of imprisonment being served with the State of Maine Docket CR04-98. App. 2. At the sentencing hearing, Rogers had contended that under Guideline § 5G1.3(b), his entire federal sentence should run concurrently to his undischarged state sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b) (2003). The district court disagreed, ruling that § 5G1.3(c), not § 5G1.3(b), applied to Rogers' case. Exercising its discretion under § 5G1.3(c), it ordered that all but 12 months of Rogers' 120-month sentence run consecutively to his undischarged state sentence.