Opinion ID: 803466
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Temporary Internet Files

Text: Ramos argues, with respect to the computer seized on April 4, 2008, that the evidence failed to prove that he knowingly received or possessed images from the internet because the evidence showed only that he viewed images in temporary internet or cache files (without saving them) and that the mere viewing of child pornography stored in temporary internet files was insufficient to sustain a conviction under the statute as it then existed. - 22 - Ramos was charged with receipt of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) and possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). At the time Ramos committed the acts in question, the statute provided in pertinent part:
(2) knowingly receives . . . (A) any child pornography that has been mailed, or shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, . . . [or] (5) . . . (B) knowingly possesses any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer disk, or any other material that contains an image of child pornography that has been mailed, or shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or that was produced using materials that have been mailed, or shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, including by computer, . . . [commits a crime]. - 23 - 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), (5)(B) (effective July 27, 2006 to October 7, 2008).7 The statute does not define receipt or possession, and courts have given these terms their plain meaning. See, e.g., United States v. Pruitt, 638 F.3d 763, 766 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (The ordinary meaning of 'receive' is 'to knowingly accept'; 'to take possession or delivery of'; or 'to take in through the mind or senses.' (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary: Unabridged 1894 (1993)), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 113 (2011)); United States v. Romm, 455 F.3d 990, 998-1000 (9th Cir. 2006) ('Possession' is '[t]he fact of having or holding property 7 On October 8, 2008 -- after the seizure of Ramos's desktop computer on April 4, 2008, but before the seizure of Ramos's laptop on November 21, 2008 -- Congress amended § 2252A(a)(5)(B) to add the words or knowingly accesses with intent to view, to make clear that accessing child pornography to view it was proscribed. See Enhancing the Effective Child Pornography Prosecution Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-358, § 203(b), 122 Stat. 4001, 4003 (2008). A Senate report explained that the amendment fills a gap in existing law that has led some courts to overturn convictions of possessors of child pornography. It amends the child pornography possession offense to clarify that it also covers knowingly accessing child pornography on the Internet with intent to view child pornography. S. Rep. No. 110-332, at 5 (2008), available at 2008 WL 1885750 (2008). - 24 - in one's power; the exercise of dominion over property.' (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1183 (7th ed. 1999)) (alteration in original)); United States v. Tucker, 305 F.3d 1193, 1204 (10th Cir. 2002) (Possession is defined as 'the holding or having something (material or immaterial) as one's own, or in one's control.' (quoting Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989))). This Court has not yet decided whether viewing images stored in temporary internet files is sufficient to establish knowing receipt or possession of child pornography. See United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 121 n.13 (2d Cir. 2008); United States v. Martin, 426 F.3d 68, 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (whether viewing child pornography on internet is legal is an open question). Other Circuits, however, have upheld child pornography receipt and possession convictions where a defendant viewed child pornography stored in temporary internet files on a computer. See, e.g., Pruitt, 638 F.3d at 766-67 (A person 'knowingly receives' child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § - 25 - 2252A(a)(2) when he intentionally views, acquires, or accepts child pornography on a computer from an outside source, whether or not he acts to save the images to a hard drive, to edit them, or otherwise to exert more control over them.); United States v. Kain, 589 F.3d 945, 948-50 (8th Cir. 2009) (The presence of child pornography in temporary internet and orphan files on a computer's hard drive is evidence[, although not conclusive,] of prior possession of that pornography . . . .); Romm, 455 F.3d at 998, 1002 (concluding that knowingly taking possession of files in internet cache, by accessing and manipulating them, constituted knowing receipt of those files); United States v. Bass, 411 F.3d 1198, 1201-02 (10th Cir. 2005) (affirming conviction for knowing possession where child pornography files viewed on internet were automatically saved to hard drive). But see United States v. Flyer, 633 F.3d 911, 91820 (9th Cir. 2011) (vacating conviction for possession under § 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2) where images were located in unallocated space for deleted data on defendant's - 26 - computer's hard drive and government presented no evidence that defendant could or did access files). In the circumstances here, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to prove that Ramos was guilty of knowingly receiving and possessing child pornography under the statute as it was worded in April 2008, even assuming he viewed the images in question only in temporary internet files and did not save them onto his hard drive. First, giving the words their plain meaning, Ramos clearly receive[d] and possesse[d] the images, even though they were only in his temporary internet files. As the evidence showed below, Ramos had some control over the images even without saving them -- he could view them on his screen, he could leave them on his screen for as long as he kept his computer on, he could copy and attach them to an email and send them to someone, he could print them, and he could (with the right software) move the images from a cached file to other files and then view or manipulate them off-line. See Romm, 455 F.3d at 998 (relying on witness's - 27 - testimony as to what could be done with cached files); Tucker, 305 F.3d at 1204-05 (relying on witness's testimony as to what could be done with cached files). Hence, as the evidence showed below, an individual who views images on the internet accepts them onto his computer, and he can still exercise dominion and control over them, even though they are in cache files. In other words, he receives and possesses them. Second, here there was ample evidence that Ramos intentionally searched for images of child pornography, found them, and knowingly accepted them onto his computer, albeit temporarily. The browsing history on his desktop computer showed that Ramos intentionally searched for child pornography on the internet. See, e.g., Pruitt, 638 F.3d at 767 (upholding defendant's conviction where investigators found a record of internet searches using terms related to child pornography . . . and a record of visits to websites with a child-pornography connection); Kain, 589 F.3d at 949-50 (finding sufficient evidence for knowing possession - 28 - where defendant's browsing history showed repeated accessing of child pornography websites). In fact, he viewed some 140 images of child pornography, which were stored on the computer in temporary internet files. He knew that these images would be found on his computer, as he told the ICE agents that they would probably find child pornography there. Further, he had also attempted to delete the temporary internet files and browsing history from his computer. See Bass, 411 F.3d at 1202 ([T]he jury here reasonably could have inferred that Bass knew child pornography was automatically saved to his mother's computer based on evidence that Bass attempted to remove the images.). Accordingly, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact could have found that Ramos knowingly received and possessed child pornography on the computer seized on April 4, 2008. - 29 -