Opinion ID: 4544572
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: United States v. Caniff

Text: Considering our ruling, we do not reach Cox’s argument that § 2251(d)(1) notice is unconstitutionally vague (or whether this argument has been waived). We nonetheless observe that the Eleventh Circuit case Cox relies upon for her associated rule of lenity argument—United States v. Caniff 27—is distinguishable. Caniff is the only other case in which a court of appeals directly considered whether § 2251(d)(1) notice applies to one-to-one communications. 28 In Caniff, the 32-year-old defendant engaged in a text-message conversation with an FBI agent who posed as a 13-year-old girl. 29 In the text conversation, the defendant asked the purported 13-year-old girl for sexually explicit pictures of herself. 30 For this conduct, the defendant was charged and convicted of “mak[ing]” a “notice” “seeking” to “receive” child pornography in violation of § 2251(d)(1)(A). 31 (In contrast, Defendant Cox was charged with “mak[ing]” a “notice” “offering” to “display, distribute, or reproduce” child pornography. 32) 27