TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Tucker

United States v. Tucker, 136 F.3d 763 (11th Cir. 1998)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 5, 1998
Docket
No. 97-2767
Citations
136 F.3d 7631998 WL 946781998 U.S. App. LEXIS 3871

Opinion

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 97-2767 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 5:96-cr-35 LAC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

BOBBY RAY TUCKER, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida _________________________ (March 5, 1998)

Before RONEY, KRAVITCH and CLARK, Senior Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Bobby Ray Tucker appeals his sentence for transporting or shipping in

interstate commerce material depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252 (a)(1).

On appeal, Tucker contends that his sentence should be vacated and his

case remanded for resentencing because the district court improperly assessed him a

four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3) for intending to possess

material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor depicting minors involved in

sadistic, masochistic, or other violent acts.

A sentencing court's findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. United

States v. Young, 115 F.3d 834, 836 (11th Cir. 1997)., cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 727

(1998). This Court reviews the application of the sentencing guidelines to the facts

de novo. United States v. Williams, 51 F.3d 1004, 1011 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 116

S.Ct. 258 (1995).

Upon review of the parties' briefs, sentencing transcript, PSI, and other

relevant portions of the record, and consideration of the arguments of the parties, we

find no reversible error.

Although this court has not specifically addressed enhancement under

U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3), it has held that an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2(b)(1)

for possession of material involving a minor who is prepubescent or under the age of 2 12 requires the government to show that the defendant intended to receive such

material. United States v. Cole, 61 F.3d 24, 24 (11th Cir. 1995, quoting United States

v. Saylor, 959 F.2d 198, 200 (11th Cir. 1992).

The Fifth Circuit has found that enhancement under § 2G2(b)(3) has an

intent requirement. In United States v. Kimbrough, 69 F.3d 723, 734 (5th Cir. 1995),

cert. denied, U.S. , 116 S.Ct. 1547 , 134 L.Ed.2d 650 (1996), the court found that

pictures of a minor female in bondage downloaded onto the defendant's computer

were sufficient evidence to conclude that the defendant had intentionally ordered and

possessed pornography that depicted sadistic or masochistic conduct. In United States

v. Canada, 110 F.3d 260, 264 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, U.S. , 118 S.Ct. 195 ,

L.Ed.2d. (1997), the court found an enhancement under § 2G2(b)(1) was supported

by evidence of sadistic material and active trading in child pornography was found on

the hard drive of the defendant's computer.

We adopt the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit and find that intent is a

necessary requirement of a § 2G2(b)(1) enhancement, and find that there was

sufficient evidence that Tucker intended to possess material depicting minors involved

in sadistic, masochistic, or other violent acts. Tucker concedes that pictures of minors

in bondage were located on the hard drive of his computer. The government

introduced Internet conversations taken from Tucker's computer which showed that 3 while he was looking for pictures he stated that he was into "young action" and would

"like to start trading . . ." and introduced a listing of Internet conversations

documenting Tucker's trading of such images.

We conclude that the district court properly assessed Tucker a four-level

enhancement for intending to possess material depicting minors involved in sadistic,

masochistic, or other violent acts.

AFFIRMED.

4

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1999: 12001: 22002: 42003: 22005: 12006: 12012: 12021: 119992026peak 2002 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Frank195 F. App'x 114 (3d Cir. 2006)
  2. United States v. Thomas C. Richardson238 F.3d 837 (7th Cir. 2001)
  3. United States v. Alois Larry Wolk, Jr., Also Known as Larry Wolk337 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2003)
  4. United States v. Garrett190 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 1999)
  5. United States v. Jose David Caro309 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2002)
  6. United States v. Jeremy Bender290 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2002)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Mitchell OverbyNo. 20-5172 (6th Cir. Jan. 4, 2021)
  2. United States v. Robert Allan CowanNo. 11-15989 (11th Cir. Nov. 19, 2012)
  3. United States v. Frank195 F. App'x 114 (3d Cir. 2006)
  4. United States v. Tyree123 F. App'x 508 (3d Cir. 2005)
  5. United States v. Chance Rearden349 F.3d 608 (9th Cir. 2003)
  6. United States v. Alois Larry Wolk, Jr., Also Known as Larry Wolk337 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2003)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 8

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Kimbrough, 69 F.3d 723 (5th Cir. 1995) 158
United States v. Canada, 110 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 1997) 67
Jordan v. United States, 517 U.S. 1157 (1996) 57
United States v. Williams, 51 F.3d 1004 (11th Cir. 1995) 56
United States v. Young, 115 F.3d 834 (11th Cir. 1997) 34
Barfield v. United States, 522 U.S. 875 (1997) 12
United States v. Saylor, 959 F.2d 198 (11th Cir. 1992) 5
United States v. Cole, 61 F.3d 24 (11th Cir. 1995) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list