United States v. Adam Libbey-Tipton
948 F.3d 694
| 6th Cir. | 2020Background
- FBI seized control of the dark‑web child‑pornography forum “Playpen” and tracked user account “Revenger,” which registered in Nov. 2014 and accessed many posts including one (“New Mary 2014”) depicting digital penetration of a prepubescent girl.
- Agents traced Revenger to an IP and MAC addresses at Adam Libbey‑Tipton’s Cleveland residence, executed a warrant, and seized digital devices. Forensics recovered 390 images on seized devices and linked another 482 images to devices/MACs tied to Revenger.
- Libbey‑Tipton was indicted for receipt, access with intent to view, and possession of child pornography; the government sought to admit his prior conviction (gross sexual imposition of a 4‑year‑old cousin) under Fed. R. Evid. 414.
- The district court admitted the prior child‑molestation conviction under Rules 414 and 403; the jury convicted on the charged counts (one count later dismissed).
- The court sentenced Libbey‑Tipton to concurrent 235‑month terms (below the advisory Guidelines range). He appealed, challenging (1) admission of the prior conviction, (2) sentence reasonableness and Guidelines calculations, (3) effectiveness of counsel, and (4) the search warrant/suppression. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Libbey‑Tipton's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior child‑molestation under Fed. R. Evid. 414/403 | Prior conviction is highly probative of sexual interest in children, similar to charged conduct, necessary to rebut claim others used computers; conviction (not mere allegation) supports admission | 414 shouldn’t allow propensity evidence here; Rule 403 requires exclusion because of unfair prejudice and stigma; offered a stipulation instead of victim testimony | Admission affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion—prior act closely similar, temporally proximate, probative to identity/motive, conviction status reduces risk of distracting mini‑trial, prejudice did not substantially outweigh probative value |
| Sentence reasonableness and image‑count enhancements | Guideline enhancements (including 5‑level 600+ images) supported by 872‑image total (390 seized + 482 linked via Revenger); sentencing factfinding by preponderance proper; court considered §3553(a) factors and varied downward | Many images were only in unallocated space or merely previewed on site and not downloaded; enhancements therefore unsupported; court failed adequately to weigh mental‑health and policy arguments against §2G2.2 | Affirmed: procedural and substantive reasonableness upheld; district court’s factual findings supported by record and it considered §3553(a) mitigation and policy arguments; enhancements proper given post‑2008 law criminalizing knowing access with intent to view |
| Ineffective‑assistance‑of‑counsel claim | (Respondent) Record is undeveloped for review on direct appeal | Trial counsel ineffective (arguments raised on appeal) | Dismissed on direct appeal as premature/insufficiently developed; may be raised in collateral review |
| Fourth Amendment challenge to warrant/suppression | Warrant validity/suppression claim foreclosed by Sixth Circuit precedent (Moorehead) | Warrant invalidly traced Revenger to defendant; suppression warranted | Rejected as precluded by controlling circuit precedent (United States v. Moorehead); claim not reviewable here |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Underwood, 859 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. 2017) (standards for admitting prior child‑molestation evidence under Rule 414 and Rule 403 balancing)
- United States v. Seymour, 468 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 2006) (Rule 414’s scope includes receipt of child pornography)
- United States v. Stout, 509 F.3d 796 (6th Cir. 2007) (limits on admitting inflammatory prior sexual acts under Rule 403)
- United States v. Luck, 852 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2017) (government not required to accept defendant’s stipulation in child‑pornography context)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for sentencing review; procedural and substantive components)
- United States v. Lewis, 605 F.3d 395 (6th Cir. 2010) (legitimate basis for computer‑use enhancements under §2G2.2)
- United States v. Moorehead, 912 F.3d 963 (6th Cir. 2019) (circuit precedent precluding certain challenges to the Playpen/Network investigative technique)