Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Williams, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    The defendant, Clinton Williams, appealed his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) for producing child pornography. Williams argued that applying the statute to his purely intrastate production of child pornography exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction, finding its precedent in United States v. Malloy and United States v. Forrest clearly established that the statute's application to intrastate child pornography production was within Congress's Commerce Clause authority. As a panel, the Fourth Circuit could not reconsider or overrule its own precedent.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-02-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-5183

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The defendant, Clinton Williams, appealed his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) for producing child pornography. Williams argued that applying the statute to his purely intrastate production of child pornography exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction, finding its precedent in United States v. Malloy and United States v. Forrest clearly established that the statute's application to intrastate child pornography production was within Congress's Commerce Clause authority. As a panel, the Fourth Circuit could not reconsider or overrule its own precedent.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views2 pages

    United States v. Williams, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The defendant, Clinton Williams, appealed his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) for producing child pornography. Williams argued that applying the statute to his purely intrastate production of child pornography exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction, finding its precedent in United States v. Malloy and United States v. Forrest clearly established that the statute's application to intrastate child pornography production was within Congress's Commerce Clause authority. As a panel, the Fourth Circuit could not reconsider or overrule its own precedent.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-5183

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    CLINTON WILLIAMS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
    Lacy H. Thornburg,
    District Judge. (1:08-cr-00035-LHT-1)

    Submitted:

    January 12, 2010

    Decided:

    February 8, 2010

    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Matthew R. Segal,


    FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville,
    North Carolina, for Appellant. Edward R. Ryan, Acting United
    States Attorney, Cortney Escaravage, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Clinton

    Williams

    appeals

    his

    conviction

    under

    18

    U.S.C.A. 2251(a) (West Supp. 2009) for sexual exploitation of


    a

    minor

    for

    the

    purpose

    of

    producing

    Williams raises only one issue on appeal:


    court

    correctly

    purely

    concluded

    intrastate

    that

    production

    the

    of

    physical

    whether the district

    statutes

    child

    depiction.

    application

    pornography

    was

    to

    within

    Congresss power under the Commerce Clause.


    Williams
    clearly

    argument

    foreclosed

    by

    that

    this

    the

    lower

    Circuits

    court

    erred

    precedent.

    is

    United

    States v. Malloy, 568 F.3d 166, 180 (4th Cir.), petition for
    cert. filed, 78 U.S.L.W. 3271 (S. Ct. 2009) (No. 09-523); United
    States v. Forrest, 429 F.3d 73, 78 (4th Cir. 2005).

    Further, we

    lack authority to reconsider this courts prior decisions.

    [A]

    panel of this court cannot overrule, explicitly or implicitly,


    the precedent set by a prior panel of this court.
    Supreme

    Court

    or

    this

    court

    sitting

    en

    banc

    can

    Only the
    do

    that.

    Scotts Co. v. United Indus. Corp., 315 F.3d 264, 271-72 n.2
    (4th.

    Cir.

    2002)

    (internal

    quotation

    Accordingly, we affirm Williams conviction.


    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials

    marks

    omitted).

    We dispense with

    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.


    AFFIRMED
    2

    You might also like