Opinion ID: 28413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: dren Forced to Porn, Just Grow Up, Child

Text: In April 1999, United States Postal Inspec- Rape, Children Playground, Innocent Lolita, tor R.C. Adams contacted Detective Steve Fantastic Site, and Special Site. Nelson of the FBI’s Crimes Against Children Task Force assigned to the Dallas Police De- Nelson captured information from some of partment’s Child Exploitation Unit. Adams re- the websites by using an Internet card that perquested Nelson’s aid in investigating an In- mitted him to record the information onto a ternet website named “kintamani.com,” which video cassette recorder. He also used a softlinked to another website named “Lolita ware package called “Web Buddy” to capture World.” Nelson agreed to access the website the information from the websites and copy it as part of an undercover investigation. onto the hard drive of his computer so he could view it offline. He determined the lo- To gain access to all the information on the cations of the websites from which the child website, a prospective subscriber was prompt- pornography originated by using a software ed to go to a sign-up page hosted by “KeyZ.” package called “VisualRoute.” The location The subscriber then had to provide his or her of each image of child pornography alleged in name, address, and a credit card number to the indictment was traced to an internet serwhich to charge a fee of $29.95 for thirty vice provider outside Texas. days’ access. Nelson purchased access and found pornography on “Lolita World” that in- The Landslide and AVS homepages dis- 2 played banners, or online advertisements with $2,968,422 and that $1,290,412 of the prohyperlinks, alerting potential subscribers to the ceeds came from the eleven websites named in availability of child pornography on various the indictment. websites. In addition, Landslide offered a free “adult classified advertisements” section on the II. website that showed banners advertising child The eighty-nine-count superseding indictpornography. On reviewing the ads, Nelson ment charged the Reedys with various offenses found postings by persons wanting to trade arising from their participation in the transmischild pornography, to have sexual contact with sion of child pornography over the Internet. children, and to trade KeyZ passwords. Count 1 charged conspiracy to transport “any visual depiction” produced through the use of The Reedys were the owners and operators “a minor engaging in sexually explicit conof Landslide, and Thomas Reedy was its duct,” in violation of § 2252(a)(1) and (b)(1). founder. Janice Reedy held various positions Counts 2 through 44 charged the substantive with the company beginning in January 1998, offenses of transporting and aiding and abetincluding handling its financial transactions. ting the transport of visual depictions proDuring an interview with law enforcement duced through the use of minors engaging in agents, Thomas Reedy admitted that he and sexually explicit conduct, in violation of his wife knew some of the websites contained §§ 2252 and 2. Count 45 charged conspiracy child pornography and that child pornography to commit activities relating to material conrepresented thirty to forty percent of his busi- stituting or containing child pornography in ness. The Reedys had authored and received violation of § 2252A(a)(1) and (b)(1). Counts emails indicating that they were aware that 46 through 88 charged committing activities some of the websites on the KeyZ system of- relating to material constituting or containing fered child pornography and that the Reedys child pornography and aiding and abetting in knew the transmission of child pornography violation of §§ 2252A and 2. Count 89 was illegal. alleged possession of a computer disk and computer material containing approximately During a search of the Reedys’ residence in fifty images of child pornography produced by September 1999, law enforcement agents means of a computer using material shipped seized a desktop computer and a notebook and transported in interstate commerce, in computer. The basis of Count 89 was sev- violation of § 2252A, which is part of the enty-one child pornography images from the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, 18 desktop computer. The police found three im- U.S.C. § 2251 et seq. ages of child pornography on the notebook computer. The jury found Thomas Reedy guilty on counts 1 through 89 and Janice Reedy guilty Landslide’s gross sales from September on counts 1 through 87. The court sentenced 1997 through August 1999 were $9,275,964; Thomas Reedy to 180 months’ consecutive $204,025 was returned to dissatisfied custom- imprisonment on each count, plus three years’ ers. Landside incurred costs of $6,103,517. supervised release on each count, to run Based on this information, the auditor deter- concurrently, and a special assessment of mined that Landslide had made a profit of $8,900. His prison term would have equaled 3 1,335 years, so the court ordered that he serve other does not.” United States v. Nguyen, 28 a life sentence. F.3d 477, 482 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Free, 574 F.2d 1221, 1224 (5th Janice Reedy received 168 months’ Cir.1978)). Where a multipart transaction raisimprisonment on each count, to run es the prospect of multiplicity under a single concurrently, plus three years’ supervised statute, the question becomes “‘whether release and a special assessment of $8,700. separate and distinct prohibited acts, made Her prison term totals fourteen years. punishable by law, have been committed.’” United States v. Shaid, 730 F.2d 225, 231 (5th III. Cir.1984) (quoting Bins v. United States, 331 The Reedys allege that their indictment was F.2d 390, 393 (5th Cir.1964)). multiplicitous for three reasons: (1) The in- dictment twice charges the same conduct as B. the transportation of materials that sexually ex- We first consider whether the government ploit minors in violation of § 2252 and the properly charged two counts for each image transportation of child pornography in by charging separate violations of §§ 2252 and violation of § 2252A. (2) The indictment 2252A. The government acknowledges that it alleged duplicative conspiracies to violate each could not properly charge a violation of both of the two statutes. (3) The indictment and statutes for each image but argues that Thomthe district court incorrectly viewed the as Reedy waived this argument in the district number of pictures, rather than the number of court. A defendant must challenge the websites, as the relevant unit of analysis under multiplicity of an indictment before trial or § 2252. forfeit the issue. United States v. Soape, 169 F.3d 257, 265-66 (5th Cir. 1999). He may, A. however, raise claims about the multiplicity of We review issues of multiplicity de novo. sentences for the first time on appeal.1 ThomUnited States v. Dupre, 117 F.3d 810, 818 as Reedy’s appellate brief repeatedly (5th Cir.1997). “‘Multiplicity’ is the charging characterizes his challenge as one to the of a single offense in several counts.” multiplicitous sentences, which eliminates any 1A CHARLES A. WRIGHT, FEDERAL PRACTICE possibility of waiver.2 AND PROCEDURE § 142, at 7-8 (West 3d ed. 1999) “The chief danger raised by a multi- Thomas Reedy so phrased his challenge in plicitous indictment is the possibility that the defendant will receive more than one sentence 1 for a single offense.” United States v. Swaim, Soape, 169 F.3d at 265-66; United States v. 757 F.2d 1530, 1537 (5th Cir.1985). Cooper, 966 F.2d 936, 940 (5th Cir. 1992). The defendant may not challenge concurrent sentences after waiving the multiplicity objection before trial, Where overlapping statutory provisions but the court imposed Thomas Reedy’s sentences create a risk of multiplicity, “[t]he test for de- consecutively. United States v. Galvan, 949 F.2d termining whether the same act or transaction 777, 781 (5th Cir. 1991). constitutes two offenses or only one is whether conviction under each statutory provision re- 2 The government does not argue that Janice quires proof of an additional fact which the Reedy waived challenges to the multiplicity of the indictment or the multiplicity of the sentence. 4 the district court as well. The government the Reedys without including the substantive concedes that Janice Reedy raised these violations of § 2252A.3 The court should not objections at trial. She objected “pursuant to consider counts 46 to 88, which are the previously filed motion to dismiss the duplicative of the earlier-numbered counts, nor indictment, and . . . that motion alleged that should it consider count 45, which alleges a the indictment itself is multiplicitious.” She duplicative conspiracy to violate § 2252A. stated that the government responded to the challenge to the indictment by stating that it C. would elect among the charges later, and she In determining the sentence, 4 the district sought to remind the court of that at court used t he total number of images sentencing. appearing on all the websites as the relevant “unit of prosecution” for determining the num- Thomas Reedy’s attorney joined in the ar- ber of counts for violating § 2252. The gument by referencing the district court’s Reedys contend that the court should have scheduling order, which permitted co- used only the number of websites.5 The defendants to join in one another’s objections government responds that the Reedys should, and motions. Because Thomas Reedy theoretically, bear liability for each download consistently ratified Janice Reedy’s challenges based on the multiplicity of the sentence, and 3 he has presented them on appeal, he has By striking down the overbroad portions of the preserved the argument for our review. child pornography definitions, the Court made §§ 2252 and 2252A indistinguishable. Section On remand, the district court should resen- 2252 regulates “any visual depiction” if it tence for each violation of § 2252 and not “involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” § 2252(a)(1). Section 2252A § 2252A. Section 2252(a) criminalizes the regulates “child pornography,” but the only “transport” of “visual depictions” of “minors remaining, constitutional definition of “child engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” pornography,” 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(A), defines it Sect ion 2252A(a) criminalizes the as a “visual depiction.” The district court should transportation or distribution of “child resentence based on § 2252, to avoid additional ispornography.” Section 2556(8)(B)-(D) sues that might arise under § 2252A. The two defines “child pornography” broadly to include statutes are functionally identical. a visual depiction that “appears to be a minor 4 engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” a The government mistakenly asserts that in “depiction” “created, adapted, or modified to their brief on appeal, the Reedys challenge the [so] appear,” or one advertised as a visual validity only of the indictment, not the sentence. depiction of a minor engaged in such conduct. The Reedys plainly challenge both. 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(B)-(D). In Ashcroft v. 5 The Reedys contend that there were 10 web- Free Speech Coalition, 122 S. Ct. 1389, 1400- sites containing child pornography and that, ac01, 1406 (2002), the Court struck down this cordingly, there should have been only 10 counts definition of “child pornography” as for violation of each of §§ 2252 and 2252A instead overbroad. of 43 counts for each section. We leave it to the district court, on remand, to determine how many Accordingly, the court should resentence counts should be considered in sentencing, in accordance with this opinion. 5 of each picture from each website on the KeyZ is determined by whether separate and network.6 distinct acts made punishable by law have been committed.” The principle To determine whether the Reedys’ conduct underlying this rule is that the “unit of gives rise to multiple convictions or prosecution” for a crime is the actus punishments, we must, therefore, determine reus, the physical conduct of the the “allowable unit of prosecution.” United defendant. States v. C.I.T. Credit Corp., 344 U.S. 218, 221 (1952); United States v. Prestenbach, 230 Prestenbach, 230 F.3d at 783.7 F.3d 780, 782 (5th Cir. 2000). We begin with the language of § 2252 to determine whether The word “transport” is fairly it precisely delineates the criminal act. United straightforward,8 but closely examining the States v. Dixon, 273 F.3d 636, 642 (5th Cir. meaning of “visual depiction” only complicates 2001), petition for cert. filed (Apr. 3, 2002) matters. We start by considering whether a (No. 01-9579). “visual depiction” is neatly confined to an individual image or encompasses a broader set Section 2252(a) makes it a crime “know- of items, such as books, magazines, movies, or ingly” to “ship” or “transport” in “interstate other collections. commerce” “any visual depiction” of “a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” We Section 2256 defines a “visual depiction” as have explained the problem posed by the use “including any photograph, film, video, picof the word “any,” and our method for ture, or computer or computer-generated imresolving it: Since “any” can mean “one” or “some,” 7 The word “any” has troubled many courts. courts have determined the unit of E.g., United States v. Esch, 832 F.2d 531, 541-42 prosecution by reference to the conduct & n.9 (10th Cir. 1987). “Any” conveys multiple alleged. Courts apply the following meanings about the necessary amount. It rule: “Whether a transaction results in alternately may refer to “one, some, or all the commission of one or more offenses indiscriminately of whatever quantity” or “the maximum or whole of a number or quantity.” W EBSTER ’ S T HIRD N EW I NTERNATIONAL 6 As the government acknowledged in response UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY 97 (Merriam-Webster to questioning at oral argument, its position is that 1986). a new count, potentially carrying an additional 8 prison term of 15 years, can be added every time In United States v. Runyan, 290 F.3d 223, any subscriber downloads an image. Take, 239 & n.11 (5th Cir. 2002), for example, we inhypothetically, one website with 100 child terpreted “transport” in interstate commerce under pornographic pictures. If each of 100 subscribers 18 U.S.C. § 2251’s jurisdictional requirement to were to download each of the 100 pictures just include the “transmission of material via the Inonce, the defendant could be charged with 10,000 ternet.” We interpreted “transport” as an element counts, for a potential sentence of 150,000 years. of the offense under § 2252A as requiring “some Such an extreme interpretation of Congressional evidence linking the specific images supporting the intent undermines the reliability and credibility of conviction to the Internet.” Id. at 242. Neither the government’s case on appeal. definition adds much to the current inquiry. 6 age or picture, whether made or produced by of § 2252 fails to resolve the question, so we electronic, mechanical, or other means.” 18 turn to our one precedent interpreting related U.S.C. § 2256(5). This list includes both issues under that section.11 items that may be classified as a single shot of a single scene, such as a still photograph, and In United States v. Gallardo, 915 F.2d 149, series of shots of several scenes or ongoing ac- 150 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendant mailed four tion, such as a film or video. The statute con- envelopes addressed to four persons in various templates “visual depictions” as constituting locations, and argued that because he mailed both single images and more than one image. three envelopes at the same time, the court should consider them as a single count. In a Other portions of § 2252 demonstrate that passage on which both sides focus here, we Congress recognized that a “visual depiction” held that the three envelopes should count as might include one or several images. Section three, and only three, counts: 2252(a)(4)(B) forbids the possession of “books, magazines, periodicals, films, video [E]ach separate use of the mail to tapes, or other matter which contain any visual transport or ship child pornography depiction” sent through interstate commerce.9 should constitute a separate crime And § 2252(c)(1) creates an affirmative because it is the act of either defense for persons possessing “less than three transporting or shipping that is the matters containing any visual depiction.” These references tell us that a “matter” is 10 larger and inclusive of a “visual depiction,” but (...continued) they do not explain the size or inclusiveness of Cir. 1999) (holding individual files count as “other matter”) with United States v. Lacy, 119 F.3d 742, a “visual depiction.”10 Standing alone, the text 748 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that computer files are not “other matter,” but a hard drive and floppy disc are). 9 In the course of resolving a separate statutory 11 interpretation question, the Eighth Circuit, at least, Other jurisdictions have addressed similar but has classified a video tape as a “visual depiction”. not identical questions, and their opinions shed only United States v. Broyles, 37 F.3d 1314, 1317 (8th limited light on the question before us. E.g., Cir. 1994). United States v. Thompson, 281 F.3d 1088, 1091, 1097-98 (10th Cir. 2002) (interpreting U.S.S.G. 10 The First Circuit has held that a single § 2G2.4(b)(2)’s use of the word “item” to refer to negative strip with three undeveloped photos is one individual computer files and not discs); United “matter.” United States v. McKelvey, 203 F.3d States v. Matthews, 11 F. Supp. 2d 656, 659 (D. 66, 71 (1st Cir. 2000). The Second Circuit Md. 1998) (holding that a single email invoked the rule of lenity to hold that several in- transmission should establish a single count), aff’d, dividual loose pictures removed from a magazine 209 F.3d 338 (4th Cir. 2000); United States v. do not count as a “matter.” United States v. Meyer, 602 F. Supp. 1480, 1481 (S.D. Cal. 1985) Dauray, 215 F.3d 257, 264-65 (2d Cir. 2000). (invoking rule of lenity to hold that a person could not face two counts for sending and receiving the Courts have divided over whether individual same picture); United States v. Labean, 56 M.J. graphic computer files count as a “matter.” Com- 587, 590 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. 2001) (holding that pare United States v. Vig, 167 F.3d 443, 448 (8th downloading 25 separate pictures from a single (continued...) website in 18 minutes established 25 counts). 7 central focus of this statute. Gallardo We are faced, then, with what to do where, mailed four separate envelopes as here, a criminal statute fails to provide an containing child pornography, thus com- answer to a question.12 The Supreme Court mitting four separate acts of provided the answer almost fifty years ago transporting or shipping. The number of when faced with this interpretive dilemma. In photographs in each envelope is Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81, 82 (1955), irrelevant. In contrast, a defendant the Court considered whether the Mann Act’s arrested with one binder containing prohibition against knowingly transporting numerous photographs has committed “any woman or girl” in interstate commerce only one act of transportation. for an immoral purpose supported two counts Similarly, a single transportation of two for transporting two women at the same time women is but one violation of the Mann in the same vehicle. The Court reached the Act. same impasse that we have reached today. Because “argumentative skill” “could Id. at 151 (citation omitted). persuasively and not unreasonably reach” either interpretation, the Court ruled that the The government emphasizes that we parsed “ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the placing of the three envelopes into the lenity,” and the government could charge only mail. The Reedys highlight that we permitted one count. Id. at 83.13 We reach the same only one count for each envelope and labeled improper an attempt to charge the defendants 12 for each picture contained in the envelope. The legislative history is not particularly Gallardo is not especially similar to the instant helpful; neither is a restatement of the statute’s purpose. Obviously, Congress sought to prevent case, so we take from it only a single pro- the abuse and exploitation of children and to dis- position: Where a defendant has a single courage the secondary market that fosters that envelope or book or magazine containing abuse. Reciting the purpose of a criminal law, many images of minors engaging in sexual ac- however, provides no information about the level at tivity, the government often should charge which Congress chose to set the penalties. Preonly a single count. sumably that purpose was not limitless, or Congress would have established life sentences for Consider the Reedys’ actions: They each violation of the statute. Neither the legislative established a security screening device that history nor the purpose is fine-grained enough to aided and abetted the website operators who resolve the question before us. purveyed child pornography. The Reedys 13 chose to bundle their service by website; they We invoke the rule of lenity only where “a charged for subscriptions to individual web- reasonable doubt persists about a statute’s intended scope even after resort to the language and sites under the KeyZ plan. As the defendant in structure, legislative history, and motivating poliGallardo chose to collect several pictures in cies of the statute.” Moskal v. United States, 498 an envelope, or the publisher of a magazine of U.S. 103, 108 (1990). Despite its status as a tool child pornography chooses to collect several of last resort, this principle has a long and images in a periodical, the Reedys chose to established history in the Supreme Court and this bundle in this manner. Gallardo cuts slightly circuit. Where, after seizing everything from in favor of the Reedys’ interpretation. which aid can be derived, the statute remains am- (continued...) 8 conclusion here and decide that the district for abuse of discretion. United States v. court erred by permitting the prosecution to Young, 282 F.3d 349, 353 (5th Cir. 2002). A group the counts by individual image rather conviction will be reversed only if the charge than website.14 “as a whole leaves us with substantial and ineradicable doubt as to whether the jury has