Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Alan Clifton, 4th Cir. (2014)
United States v. Alan Clifton, 4th Cir. (2014)
No. 13-4575
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:12-cr-00389-RDB-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Defendant Alan J. Clifton was convicted in early 2013 by a
jury in the District of Maryland of three offenses involving
child pornography, in contravention of separate subsections of
18 U.S.C. 2252(a).
in
sexually
2252(a)(1).
explicit
conduct,
in
violation
of
I.
A.
Cliftons
prosecution
arose
from
an
undercover
police
10,
2011,
Detective
Childs
of
the
Baltimore
On
County
file-sharing
FrostWire. 1
networks,
including
network
called
In furtherance of her
determining
minors
that
engaged
in
the
downloaded
sexually
files
explicit
appeared
conduct,
to
the
accounts
Internet
protocol
address.
Information
two
police
officers
regarding
Detective
Childss
investigation.
He
confessed
to
downloading
online
child
pornography and estimated that he had saved about 200 images and
videos of child pornography on his computer.
acknowledged
downloading
the
FrostWire
Clifton further
software
program
and
two
respectively.
FrostWire
folders
When
had
labeled
prompted,
installed
incomplete
Clifton
shared
also
folder
in
and
saved,
admitted
his
that
FrostWire
Id.
B.
1.
in
the
District
of
Maryland
charged
Clifton
with
three
(1) transportation of
During
Cliftons
jury
trial
in
March
2013,
the
network
to
Specifically,
the
FrostWires
access
and
prosecution
installation
share
child
presented
process,
its
pornography.
evidence
default
regarding
settings,
and
example,
FBI
Agent
Gordon,
the
prosecutions
expert
FrostWire users.
for
online
chats
with
other
FrostWire
showed
that
Clifton
created
personal
users,
and
The government
folders
within
extensions
associated
with
images
and
videos,
including
2011,
Detective
Childs
successfully
downloaded
child
prosecutions
evidence
highlighted
inconsistencies
term
searched
PTHC.
for
pornography
the
and
pornography.
At
trial,
term
knew
however,
PTHC
that
the
in
search
he
an
conceded
effort
would
to
result
that
he
download
in
child
He later
collection
pornography.
contained
The
more
adult
prosecutions
pornography
forensic
than
evidence,
however,
established
that
Clifton
only
had
thirty
adult
denied
that
he
had
intentionally
transported
that
it
was
possible
other
any
child
Clifton casually
FrostWire
users
could
Id. at 494.
Under cross-examination,
his
any
motion,
explaining
that
there
was
sufficient
evidence
to
Clifton
renewed
his
request
for
judgment
of
Id. at
607.
In instructing the jury on Count One, the district court
explained
that
the
prosecution
was
obliged
to
prove
four
entirely up to
find that the
eyes
and
any
on this issue.
that
the
evidence
did
not
show
that
he
wilfully
Id. at 557-58. 9
including
the
Count
One
charge
that
Clifton
had
of
the
three
offenses,
with
each
sentence
set
to
run
10
II.
We review de novo a trial courts denial of a motion for
judgment
of
acquittal.
Surgical
Supply
See
Corp.,
989
United
F.2d
States
1390,
1401
v.
United
(4th
Cir.
Med.
&
1993).
the
substantial
verdict
evidence,
must
taking
be
the
sustained
view
most
if
there
favorable
to
is
the
F.3d 134, 136 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Glasser v. United States,
315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942)).
F.3d
(en
849,
862
challenging
(4th
the
Cir.
sufficiency
1996)
of
the
banc).
evidence
defendant
supporting
his
United States v.
transported
P2P
network
pornographic
users.
See
videos
18
involving
U.S.C.
minors
to
2252(a)(1)
maintains
that
the
prosecutions
evidence
does
not
program
[i.e.,
FrostWire]
to
obtain
child
pornography,
by
We have recognized that the use of a peer-to-peer filesharing program constitutes distribution as defined by the
Sentencing Guidelines in the context of child pornography.
See
United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009).
Thus, [w]hen knowingly using a file-sharing program that allows
others to access child pornography files, a defendant commits an
act related to the transfer of material involving the sexual
exploitation of a minor.
is
undisputed
that
Detective
Childs
downloaded
child
others
to
access
child
pornography
from
his
computer.
he
knew
FrostWire
was
11
file-sharing
program. 11
On
would
allow
him
to
openly
share
his
files
with
And,
Clifton
disabled
sharing
on
certain
file
extensions,
that
he
shared folder.
periodically
checked
the
contents
of
his
We are
confident it did.
Importantly,
that
Clifton
the
jury
knowingly
instructions
transported
specifically
child
provided
pornography
as
J.A. 518.
Clifton later acknowledged, however, that the
standard disclaimer during the installation process would have
informed him that FrostWire was a file-sharing program [i]f I
read it. Id. at 524-25.
13
or
if
otherwise
he
have
prosecutions
deliberately
been
closed
obvious
evidence
to
included
his
eyes
him.
to
J.A.
proof
that
what
would
660.
The
Clifton
had:
The
(1) notified
files
could
be
shared;
and
(3)
offered
multiple
See
United States v. Lentz, 383 F.3d 191, 199 (4th Cir. 2004) (The
jury, not the reviewing court, assesses the credibility of the
witnesses
and
presented.).
resolves
any
conflicts
in
the
evidence
features,
FrostWires
could
and
and,
numerous
were
as
result,
notifications
downloading
his
14
that
files.
feigned
other
We
ignorance
FrostWire
must
of
users
conclude,
therefore,
that
the
jury
had
sufficient
evidence
to
convict
III.
Pursuant to the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the
district court.
AFFIRMED
15