U.S. v. Ronald Miltier (Floyd 2/7/2018): The Fourth Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) criminalizes the purely intrastate receipt of child pornography based on the previous movement of a computer through interstate or foreign commerce. Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court denying Miltier’s motion for judgment of acquittal. Full Opinion
Carol Campbell v. Boston Scientific Corporation (Wilkinson 2/6/2018): The Fourth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in consolidating four transvaginal mesh products liability cases through Multidistrict Litigation procedures because the facts and injuries of each case were similar, each jury award was supported by substantial evidence, the district court ensured that distinct questions of fact and law could be appropriately developed at trial and distinguished by the jury, and substantial time and money was saved by all parties and the community as a whole. The court thus affirmed the judgments of the district court in favor of the plaintiffs. Full Opinion
U.S. v. Ronald Miltier, No. 16-4729
Decided: February 7, 2018
The Fourth Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) criminalizes the purely intrastate receipt of child pornography based on the previous movement of a computer through interstate or foreign commerce. Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court denying Miltier’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
An FBI Task Force downloaded images of child pornography from an IP address assigned to Defendant Ronald Miltier (“Miltier”) in 2013. In 2014, FBI agents executed a search warrant at his home and seized several electronic devices. A forensic examiner determined that only an Acer laptop and a PNY thumb drive contained child pornography or remnants of child pornography. Both devices were found in Miltier’s bedroom, and evidence indicated that Miltier used both devices. All of the illicit files on the Acer computer were originally created in the folder titled “MY SHARED FILES,” which was a mandatory folder established by a file sharing program that was installed on the computer – the Ares peer file sharing program (“Ares”) – and was the default destination for all files downloaded from Ares. The forensic examiner confirmed that at least some of the illicit files were downloaded using Ares; the examiner was able to retrieve some search histories and lists of incomplete downloads, some of which were indicative of child pornography.
Miltier was indicted in 2015, and then a grand jury returned a superseding indictment in 2016, which charged Miltier with seven counts of receipt of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) and one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), based on ten different video files found on the Acer computer. Miltier made several motions during and after trial but was convicted. On appeal, he argued that the government failed to produce sufficient evidence as to all counts that he knowingly received or possessed the illicit files, failed to produce sufficient evidence of the required interstate nexus as to Counts One and Five, and erroneously instructed the jury that this element could be satisfied by interstate movement of a computer.
The Fourth Circuit held that the interstate nexus requirement for receipt of child pornography in violation of § 2252A(a)(2)(A) can be satisfied based on the movement of a computer in interstate commerce. The court examined two questions.
First, the court held it was clear that Congress had the authority to criminalize the intrastate receipt of child pornography based on the movement of a computer in interstate commerce. Congress had specifically concluded that the intrastate regulation of child pornography sufficiently affects the interstate child pornography market. Courts have also uniformly stated that the intrastate receipt, production, and possession of child pornography have a substantial effect on the interstate movement of child pornography. Additionally, courts have held that it is within Congress’s authority to allow an interstate nexus requirement in related statutes to be satisfied by the movement of a computer in interstate or foreign commerce.
Second, the court held that § 2252A(a)(2)(A) includes the movement of a computer as a basis for satisfying the interstate nexus requirement. The court concluded that the statute’s plain language, in criminalizing the receipt of all child pornography that has any connection to interstate commerce, unambiguously allows the interstate nexus to be satisfied based on the movement of a computer, and that the statute’s legislative history emboldens a broad reading of the statute to allow for the interstate nexus requirement to be satisfied by the movement of a computer, consistent with Congress’s intent to criminalize all activity within its reach. The court also examined the other subsections of the statute criminalizing intrastate production and possession of child pornography that allow the interstate nexus to be satisfied based on the movement of a computer. Finally, the court recognized that a computer that traveled in interstate or foreign commerce would satisfy the required “connection with” interstate or foreign commerce. Relatedly, the court held that a jury instruction of the above was merely a variance from the superseding indictment, and such variance did not violate Miltier’s constitutional rights.
The Fourth Circuit also held that there was enough evidence for a rational juror to conclude that the files underlying Counts One and Five were downloaded from the internet in the same manner as the files in the other counts, and thus that the district court did not err in denying Miltier’s motion for a judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence that he received child pornography using any means or facility of interstate commerce. Both files were retrieved from the Ares program file data, which had been moved to the computer’s Recycle Bin. Both files were also originally created in the folder titled “MY SHARED FILES,” which is the default destination of all files downloaded from Ares. The eight files that form the basis of the other six counts were also originally created in this folder, and there was evidence that they were downloaded from the internet via Ares. Additionally, a forensic scientist testified that the list was not a complete list of files that were previously or presently on the computer.
Finally, the Fourth Circuit held that the government introduced evidence that, taken together, would allow a reasonable juror to find that Miltier knowingly received and possessed child pornography, as the ten files that formed the basis for the charges were found on the Acer computer, and significant evidence linked the computer to Miltier. Miltier admitted to using the computer on his work trip to Japan and it was found in his bedroom; the only email account on the computer was his work email account; the computer’s search history indicated that Miltier used the computer to conduct internet searches, including searches for terms related to Miltier’s federal job, his car, and roof repair; Miltier admitted knowing about the Ares peer file sharing program that was used to download the illicit files, his wife denied all knowledge of the program, and the program was not installed on any other computer in the house. There was also evidence the computer was used to search for child pornography, including the illicit files themselves and an extensive list of search terms indicative of child pornography. Even though he was at work with restricted access to his computer for certain timestamps, those times reflect when the files finished downloading, and the downloads could have been initiated before he entered his workplace.
Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court denying Miltier’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
Jennifer M. Greene