| 11th Circuit Court of Appeals |
|
Anyone conducting legal research on a particular topic or in a specific jurisdiction is advised to supplement these materials with their own efforts or those of a qualified attorney.If you have any suggestions for decisions that should be added to this list, please email them to me using the contact form. 2010U.S. v. Harper, No. 09-16077 Non-Argument Calendar (11th Cir. 10-5-2010) [Unpublished] — Defendant appeals his conviction and sentencing for possession of child pornography. Following execution of a search warrant and seizure of defendant's computer, a forensics examination revealed more than 600 images and more than 10 videos of child pornography. Defendant did not challenge forensics findings. Defendant based his appeal on an alleged violation of double jeopardy by dint of his conviction for both receipt and possession of child pornography. Defendant also argued that the judge improperly calculated his sentence. The Court of Appeals rejected both arguments.U.S. v. Irey, No. 08-10997 (11th Cir. 7-29-2010) -- Defendant pled guilty to a one-count indictment alleging violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(c), which prohibits use of a minor in sexually explicit conduct outside of the United States, for the purpose of creating visual depictions of such conduct and transporting said depictions to the U.S. by any means. The District Court sentenced defendant to 17.5 years in prison, out of a maximum sentence of 30 years. The government appealed, arguing that the sentence was too lenient, and that the District Court erroneously relied on an obviously false psychological report. After recounting in detail the gravity of the defendant's offenses (including the molestation and abuse of at least 50 young girls), the Court of Appeals agreed. It vacated the sentence and remanded with instructions that defendant be sentenced pursuant to the guidelines, which in this case specified a minimum and a maximum sentence of 30 years. U.S. v. Tome, No. 09-16486 (11th Cir. 7-27-2010) -- Defendant pled guilty to 13 violations of his supervised release and was sentenced to serve 24 months in prison. The District Court also imposed another year of supervised release with numerous conditions, including an order to stay off the Internet. Tome appealed, arguing that the sentence was too long and the Internet ban was overly broad. The Court of Appeals ruled that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in either instance. Kapardelis v. Danzig, No. 09-15422 (11th Cir. 7-19-2010) [Unpublished] -- Plaintiff was charged with traveling to Russia to have sex with a minor, and a search warrant was obtained for his computer. A computer forensics examination of the computer revealed images of child pornography, including material produced by Plaintiff. The sex tourism charges were eventually dropped, but plaintiff was convicted for production and possession of child pornography, and sentenced to 35 years. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Bivens action against the government agents who initially investigated him in Russia. The District Court dismissed the case, saying it was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), in which the Supreme Court ruled that a civil case against the government is barred if it would call into question a valid criminal conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed. U.S. v. Brunette, No. 09-13161 (11th Cir. 7-19-2010) [Unpublished] -- Defendent challenged imposition of a sentence of 78 months for possession of child pornography, arguing that his request for a downward variance should have been granted. Defendant's conviction stemmed from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigation into a subscription-based child pornography Web site, which revealed that defendant had made at least five monthly payments. A subsequent search of his computer turned up over 1,000 child pornography images. The Court of Appeals ruled that the District Court's sentence followed procedural guidelines and was not substantively unreasonable. U.S. v. Mallory, No. 09-15286 Non-Argument Calendar (11th Cir. 6-3-2010) [Unpublished] — Defendant was identified as a possible downloader of child pornography during a police investigation of peer-to-peer networks. A search warrant was issued for defendant's computer and images of child pornography were found on the hard drive. The government's expert witness conceded that there was no direct evidence that defendant had viewed the images, but added that defendant was the only one with access to the computer. Defendant denied viewing the images and at the end of the evidence, moved for acquittal. The District Court denied the motion and defendant was convicted. On appeal, defendant argued that the District Court erred in failing to grant his motion. Since defendant did not renew his motion at the end of the evidence, the Court of Appeals noted that it would only reverse if the evidence "on a key element of the offense is so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking." The Court concluded that there was nothing shocking about defendant's conviction. U.S. v. Brenton-Farley, No. 08-15882 (11th Cir. 2010) — Defendant engaged in lengthy communication with a woman in a chat room named "Fetish 14," during which he attempt to persuade "Stephanie" to lure her 10-year-old daughter into engaging in sexual activity as a prelude to an encounter with defendant. "Stephanie" in reality was an undercover officer; when defendant flew to meet her, he was met on the airplane and arrested by officers. Near the end of his custodial interview, defendant was asked to consent to a search of his "laptop computer, his Blackberry handheld device, his T-Mobile cell phone, and his Yahoo! account." Defendant agreed. Police discovered approximately 100 sexually explicit images of children, but could not determine if they had been purposely downloaded or merely cached by the browser. Among other things, defendant moved to suppress the indictments, arguing that had police not conducted a warrantless search of his briefcase, they would not have discovered his laptop, etc. Defendant's primary argument was that the police officers were deceptive, in that they suggested that the search was for national security reasons, not child pornography. The Court rejected that argument, noting that police asked defendant about child pornography prior to requesting his consent to the search. There was no deception, the Court ruled. The Court also held that the search of the briefcase was proper, under the well-established rule that an arrestee's possessions can be inventoried. |
Please Donate
If you find the resources on this site interesting, or if they have saved you and your client time and money, please support CFD with a donation.
