Court Opinion

ID: 9395931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 21:00:28.640802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:12.813796
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4172     Doc: 52        Filed: 05/17/2023   Pg: 1 of 8

                                           UNPUBLISHED

                             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                             No. 22-4141

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                           Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JAMES B. CLAWSON, SR.,

                           Defendant - Appellant.

                                             No. 22-4172

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                           Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JAMES B. CLAWSON, SR.,

                           Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:09−cr−00367−RDA−1)

        Submitted: February 24, 2023                                  Decided: May 17, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4172      Doc: 52         Filed: 05/17/2023    Pg: 2 of 8

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Nina J. Ginsberg, DIMUROGINSBERG, PC, Alexandria, Virginia, for
        Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Jacqueline R.
        Bechara, Assistant United States Attorney, Seth M. Schlessinger, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4172      Doc: 52         Filed: 05/17/2023      Pg: 3 of 8

        PER CURIAM:

               James B. Clawson, Sr. was serving a term of supervised release for a conviction for

        distribution of child pornography when his probation officer discovered in Clawson’s

        residence a laptop containing suspected child pornography. A grand jury, after being

        presented with several of the images found on Clawson’s computer, returned a one-count

        indictment charging Clawson with possession of child pornography, in violation of 18

        U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B).

               The case proceeded to trial, and a jury convicted Clawson on the sole count

        contained in the indictment. Additionally, the district court found that Clawson had

        violated the terms of his supervised release by (1) failing to answer the probation officer’s

        inquiries truthfully, (2) failing to satisfactorily participate in a sex offender treatment

        program, (3) committing a new crime, and (4) using a sex-related website or electronic

        bulletin board to access child erotica or child pornography. The district court sentenced

        Clawson to the mandatory minimum sentence provided by statute for the possession of

        child pornography, a term of 120 months’ imprisonment, and to a consecutive 10-month

        term of imprisonment for his supervised release violations.

               Clawson raises three arguments on appeal: (1) the district court plainly erred in its

        instruction to the jury on the meaning of “lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or

        pubic area” under 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A)(v); (2) the district court and the government

        constructively amended Clawson’s indictment in violation of Clawson’s Fifth Amendment

        rights; and (3) the district court abused its discretion when it imposed a 10-month

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4172       Doc: 52         Filed: 05/17/2023      Pg: 4 of 8

        consecutive sentence for Clawson’s supervised release violations. We disagree with

        Clawson’s arguments.

               Initially, we reject Clawson’s contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that the

        district court erred because it should have instructed the jury that “lascivious exhibition”

        means a visual depiction “in which a minor . . . engages in conduct displaying their anus,

        genitalia, or pubic area in a lustful manner that connote[s] the commission of sexual

        intercourse, bestiality, masturbation, or sadistic or masochistic abuse,” that is, “hard core”

        sexual conduct. 1 See United States v. Hillie, 14 F.4th 677, 685, 687, 688 (D.C. Cir. 2021)

        (Hillie I), amended on rehearing by United States v. Hillie, 39 F.4th 674 (D.C. Cir. 2022)

        (Hillie II). In support of his argument, Clawson relies on the D.C. Circuit’s now-vacated

        decision in Hillie I, which issued shortly after Clawson’s trial.

               Not only has the D.C. Circuit since abandoned on rehearing the definition Clawson

        urges us to apply on appeal, see Hillie II, 39 F.4th at 685, 2 but his proposed definition also

        contradicts this Court’s prior interpretation of “lascivious exhibition.” We have defined

               1
                 To the extent Clawson contends that the district court erred when it included the
        six factors from United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828 (S.D. Cal. 1986), in the jury
        instruction for “lascivious exhibition,” Clawson’s argument lacks merit. Clawson asked
        the district court to include those factors in the jury instruction, and he cannot now
        complain of this invited error on appeal. United States v. Bennafield, 287 F.3d 320, 325
        (4th Cir. 2002) (“We need not address whether the instruction constituted error . . . because
        any error was clearly invited by [the defendant], who specifically requested the jury
        instruction of which he now complains.”).
               2
                 See also United States v. Hillie, 38 F.4th 235, 236 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (denial of
        rehearing en banc) (Wilkins, J., concurring) (explaining that the panel granted rehearing
        because it recognized that Hillie I “could be read to have inadvertently narrowed the
        statutory language beyond its plain and ordinary meaning”).

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4172       Doc: 52          Filed: 05/17/2023      Pg: 5 of 8

        “lascivious exhibition” as “a depiction which displays or brings forth to view in order to

        attract notice to the genitals or pubic area . . . to excite lustfulness or sexual stimulation in

        the viewer.” United States v. Cohen, 63 F.4th 250, 256 (4th Cir. 2023) (quoting United

        States v. Courtade, 929 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2019)). Unlike the definition from Hillie

        I, our interpretation does not require that the image connote the commission of any other

        sex act. Because the district court would have violated our Circuit precedent by using the

        Hillie I definition in the jury instructions, we conclude that its failure to do so was not

        error. 3 See Doe v. Chao, 511 F.3d 461, 465 (4th Cir. 2007) (“It is axiomatic that in our

        judicial hierarchy, the decisions of the circuit courts of appeal[] bind the district courts.”).

        And, even if the district court had erred, any error would not have been “plain” because

        neither the Supreme Court, nor this Circuit, nor any of our sister circuits define “lascivious

        exhibition” in the manner Clawson now endorses on appeal.                See United States v.

        Carthorne, 726 F.3d 503, 516 & n.14 (4th Cir. 2013).

               Next, applying de novo review, United States v. Malloy, 568 F.3d 166, 177 (4th Cir.

        2009), we reject Clawson’s contention that the indictment was constructively amended in

        violation of the Fifth Amendment when (1) the government introduced images and videos

               3
                  Because the district court did not err, we need not address Clawson’s related
        argument that insufficient evidence supported his conviction under the definition set forth
        in Hillie I. Clawson also asserts, however, that he brings a general challenge to the
        sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, rather than challenging only the
        court’s alleged instructional error and the sufficiency of the evidence under his proposed
        standard. Because he raises this alternative contention for the first time in his reply brief,
        we reject this argument as waived. Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316
        (4th Cir. 2017).

                                                       5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4172       Doc: 52         Filed: 05/17/2023      Pg: 6 of 8

        at trial that were not presented to the grand jury, and (2) the district court did not give the

        jury a special verdict form requiring the jury to specify which image or video the jury

        “unanimously agreed met the criteria for child pornography.”

               The Fifth Amendment provides that “[n]o person shall be held to answer for a

        capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand

        Jury.” U.S. Const. amend. V. This Fifth Amendment right may be violated if the

        government’s presentation of evidence or the court’s jury instructions “change[s] the

        elements of the offense charged, such that the defendant is actually convicted of a crime

        other than that charged in the indictment.” United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 203

        (4th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted); see United States v. Moore, 810 F.3d 932, 936 (4th Cir.

        2016) (“[W]hen a constructive amendment claim rests on allegedly erroneous jury

        instructions, a reviewing court is to consider the totality of the circumstances . . . to

        determine whether a jury could have ‘reasonably interpreted’ the challenged instructions

        as ‘license to convict’ on an unindicted charge.” (citation omitted)).

               If different evidence is presented at trial and such evidence does not alter the crime

        charged in the indictment, then the change is a “mere variance.” Randall, 171 F.3d at 203.

        A defendant’s Fifth Amendment right is violated by the presentation of different evidence

        only if the change “prejudices the defendant either by surprising him at trial and hindering

        the preparation of his defense, or by exposing him to the danger of a second prosecution

        for the same offense.” Id.

               Here, both the evidence presented to the grand jury and the images and videos

        presented at trial related to the same crime charged in the indictment, namely, knowing

                                                      6
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4172      Doc: 52         Filed: 05/17/2023     Pg: 7 of 8

        possession of matter containing a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit

        conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). See Richardson v. United States, 526

        U.S. 813, 817–18 (1999) (“[A] disagreement about means . . . would not matter as long as

        all 12 jurors unanimously concluded that the Government had proved the necessary related

        element.”). Clawson does not identify, and the record does not reveal, any element of the

        crime that was altered by the government’s presentation of evidence or by the use of a

        general verdict form. Cf. United States v. Kearn, 863 F.3d 1299, 1310 (10th Cir. 2017)

        (holding that § 2252(a)(4)(B) does not “require unanimity as to which images formed the

        basis for conviction). Thus, we conclude that any change in the evidence presented was a

        “mere variance.” See Randall, 171 F.3d at 203.

               Also, the record does not show that this variance caused Clawson to suffer any

        prejudice. Indeed, nearly one year before the trial, the government mitigated any potential

        “surpris[e]” Clawson might otherwise have faced by providing a bill of particulars

        identifying the 127 images and the two videos the government intended to introduce at

        trial. See Malloy, 568 F.3d at 178. We thus conclude that no Fifth Amendment violation

        occurred.

               Finally, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed

        a 10-month consecutive sentence for Clawson’s supervised release violations. United

        States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1097 (4th Cir. 1995). After considering the nature of

        Clawson’s offense and his lack of remorse, Clawson’s “reproachable” criminal history, the

        need to deter Clawson from committing another child-pornography-related crime, and the

        need to protect the public, the district court imposed a presumptively reasonable within-

                                                     7
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4172      Doc: 52         Filed: 05/17/2023      Pg: 8 of 8

        Guidelines revocation sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment. See United States v. Gibbs,

        897 F.3d 199, 204 (4th Cir. 2018). The court acknowledged its discretion to impose this

        sentence concurrently or consecutively, and ultimately acted in accordance with the

        relevant United States Sentencing Guidelines policy statement when it elected to impose a

        consecutive sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) & cmt. 4. We discern no error or abuse of

        discretion in the district court’s decision. See Gibbs, 897 F.3d at 204 (“[A] sentence passes

        substantive muster if the totality of the circumstances indicates that the court had a proper

        basis for its conclusion that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.” (quotation

        marks and citation omitted)).

               For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

                                                     8