Court Opinion

ID: 9882026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 21:00:45.228426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:30.105704
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4601      Doc: 37         Filed: 10/03/2023    Pg: 1 of 5

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4601

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ASHLEY NICHOLE KOLHOFF,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:21-cr-00158-LMB-1)

        Submitted: August 18, 2023                                        Decided: October 3, 2023

        Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Christopher B. Amolsch, LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER AMOLSCH,
        Reston, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond,
        Virginia, Seth M. Schlessinger, Assistant United States Attorney, Jacqueline R. Bechara,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4601       Doc: 37        Filed: 10/03/2023      Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Ashley Nicole Kolhoff appeals from her convictions for production and distribution

        of child pornography. On appeal, Kolhoff contends that the images at issue do not depict

        sexually explicit conduct and, thus, her convictions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) and

        2252(a) were improper. We affirm.

               In September 2020, Ashley Nichole Kolhoff created an account at “Rapey.su,” a

        website dedicated to the sexual exploitation of children, including the production and

        dissemination of child pornography. Adopting the moniker “mommyxxx” on the Rapey

        website, Kolhoff produced nude images of a female infant and distributed them to

        numerous other Rapey users. These photographs included close-up images of the infant’s

        genitals and anus, in which Kolhoff used her hand to spread apart the infant’s labia or to

        expose the infant’s anus to the camera. The presentence report described the photographs

        without objection as follows:

               A few of the files included images of a close-up view of an infant female's
               vagina being spread/manipulated by two fingers; an infant female laying on
               her stomach without pants/diaper while what appears to be an adult hand
               spreads the buttocks, exposing the infant female's anus. During an interview
               of the defendant, law enforcement observed on the defendant's right hand
               two distinct freckles that were visually consistent with freckles seen on the
               right hand of the individual manipulating the infant female's vagina and anus.

        (S.J.A. * 511).

               Kolhoff waived her right to a jury trial, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial.

        At the conclusion of the evidence, the district court directed the parties to submit briefing

               *
                   Sealed Joint Appendix

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4601       Doc: 37          Filed: 10/03/2023      Pg: 3 of 5

        addressing the factual disputes highlighted at trial. Kolhoff filed a motion for judgment of

        acquittal, averring that the photographs were not “lascivious” within the meaning of 18

        U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A), because the images did not depict overt sexual activity. The court

        rejected Kolhoff’s arguments, finding that

               these images would qualify as lascivious depiction of the child’s genitals by
               themselves, and then when you put them into the context of the exchange of
               emails, there can be no question in my mind that that would qualify as child
               pornography, and there's no question that the defendant produced those
               images and did so with the intent to distribute them.

        (J.A. 335). The court found Kolhoff guilty of both charges. Kolhoff timely appealed.

               A person is guilty of producing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) if she

        “employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in . . . any

        sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such

        conduct.”    A person is guilty of distributing child pornography under 18 U.S.C.

        § 2252(a)(2) if she distributes a visual depiction that “involves the use of a minor engaging

        in sexually explicit conduct.” “Sexually explicit conduct,” as used in § 2251(a) and

        § 2252(a), means “(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital,

        anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;

        (ii) bestiality; (iii) masturbation; (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (v) lascivious

        exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person.” 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A). The

        parties agree that the only way the photographs in this case could constitute a depiction of

        sexually explicit conduct is under § 2256(2)(A)(v).

               We have explained that “lascivious exhibition” means “a depiction which displays

        or brings forth to view in order to attract notice to the genitals or pubic area of children, in

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4601      Doc: 37          Filed: 10/03/2023     Pg: 4 of 5

        order to excite lustfulness or sexual stimulation in the viewer.” United States v. Courtade,

        929 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2019). A mere picture of genitals is insufficient on its own to

        be lascivious, but the court may consider the context of the pictures when determining

        whether they were designed to sexually stimulate the viewer(s). United States v. Cohen,

        63 F.4th 250, 256 (4th Cir. 2023) (holding that pictures of erect penis are not lascivious as

        a matter of law, but the fact that the pictures were “exchanged in the context of a sexual

        conversation with no other conceivable purpose” was appropriately considered by the

        district court and supported a finding of lasciviousness), petition for cert. filed (June 20,

        2023); see also See United States v. Donoho, __ F.4th __, 2023 WL 4992866, *7-*9 (7th

        Cir. Aug. 4, 2023) (holding that defendant’s intent in creating images was relevant to

        determination of whether image was lascivious); United States v. Boam, 69 F.4th 601, 613

        (9th Cir. 2023) (finding that motive of photographer and intended response of viewer are

        relevant to finding of lasciviousness); United States v. Johnson, 639 F.3d 433, 440-41 (8th

        Cir. 2011) (noting that “even images of children acting innocently can be considered

        lascivious if they are intended to be sexual”).

               Kolhoff’s appellate claim is foreclosed by Courtade and Cohen. The photographs

        in this case were staged to focus on the infant’s genitals and anus and involved

        manipulation of the infant’s body so that these body parts would be more visible. In

        addition, the photographs were taken and shared for the purpose of sexually stimulating

        the persons in the Rapey chatroom by showing the infant’s genitals. Accordingly, the

        district court correctly found that the photographs depicted sexually explicit conduct under

        the meaning of § 2251(a).

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4601      Doc: 37         Filed: 10/03/2023      Pg: 5 of 5

               Accordingly, we affirm Kolhoff’s convictions. We dispense with oral argument

        because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

        court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     5