Court Opinion

ID: 48515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 23:43:20+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:09.834081
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                                                     F I L E D
                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                    February 14, 2007
                          FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                          _____________________                  Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                         Clerk
                               No. 06-30494
                          _____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

                                    versus

VANCE ROOKS, JR.,

                                           Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
     for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Div.
                    USDC No. 5:04-CR-50067-ALL
_________________________________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     We AFFIRM Rooks’s convictions.          The jury instruction properly

stated the jury could find Rooks guilty of either receiving or

distributing    child    pornography    in    violation   of   18   U.S.C.      §

2252A(a)(2) because the statute is unambiguous and because “a

disjunctive    statute   may   be   pleaded    conjunctively     and    proved

disjunctively.”    See United States v. Harrelson, 705 F.2d 733, 736

(5th Cir. 1983).    Furthermore, Rooks’s receiving conviction under

18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2) and his possession conviction under 18

U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5) are neither multiplicitous nor violate the

     *
       Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Fifth Amendment because they are different crimes: a person can

possess child pornography he manufactured, and a person might no

longer possess child pornography he once received.              We also note

that the   two   convictions   were       for   different   images   of   child

pornography.

                                                                     AFFIRMED.

                                      2