United States v. Benoit, 713 F.3d 1

Benoit convicted of receipt (§2252(a)(2)) and possession (§2252(a)(4)(B)) of child pornography; district court sentenced to 125 and 120 months with $11,466 restitution; Fourth Amendment suppression denied; possession is a lesser included offense of receipt; restitution remanded for proximate-cause determination; appeal partially granted with remand to vacate one conviction and reassess damages; interstate commerce nexus and related arguments addressed; post-trial restitution framework discussed.
Fourth Amendment issue: private individuals discovered materials and officer acted as witness, not government instigation, so initial observation not a government search.
Seizure issue: plain-view seizure authorized where DeGraffenreid had authority to invite officer and incriminating material was in plain view; officer’s access justified.
Multiplicity issue: possession is generally a lesser included offense of receipt; Blockburger presumption favors one conviction unless legislative intent indicates otherwise; here convictions were based on same conduct; court remands to vacate one conviction.
Restitution issue: proximate-cause requirement under §2259 applies to losses proximately caused by defendant; district court remanded to determine the portion attributable to Benoit; other circuits’ approaches discussed.
Indictment and nexus: government may satisfy §2252 nexus by interstate content; Sturm control; appeal arguments regarding nexus largely rejected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fourth Amendment: private search vs government action	Benoit	Benoit argues officer coerced private search; search should be suppressioned	No Fourth Amendment search; officer acted as witness.
Double Jeopardy: multiplicity of receipt and possession	Benoit	Possession is separate act	Possession is generally a lesser included offense of receipt; multiplicity reversed and remanded.
Restitution proximate causation	Vicky (victim) seeks full losses	Losses proximate to Benoit	Proximate-causation required; remand to recompute damages.
Interstate commerce nexus	Sturm supports nexus via content traveling interstate	Nexus not shown	Indictment adequate; Sturm controls; nexus satisfied.
Indictment and procedural issues on remand	General challenges to trial and instructions	Issues raised but not all argued with reasoning	Some issues waived; rest remanded for further proceedings.

United States v. Jacobsen, 466 F.3d 109 (10th Cir. 2006) (private search not federal unless government instigates)
United States v. Smythe, 84 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir. 1996) (private action must be instigated/encouraged by government)
Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (U.S. 1990) (consent by third party with authority exception)
United States v. Ball, 470 U.S. 856 (U.S. 1985) (receiving firearm implies possession; for child porn, similar logic applies to receipt/possession)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (test for multiple offenses based on proof of different facts)
Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1996) (multiplicity presumption unless clear contrary intent)
United States v. Muhlenbruch, 634 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2011) (possession is lesser included offense of receipt in §2252A cases)
United States v. Ehle, 640 F.3d 689 (6th Cir. 2011) (recognizes overlap; possession as lesser included offense of receipt)
United States v. Bobb, 577 F.3d 1366 (11th Cir. 2009) (multiple convictions based on same conduct can be improper)
United States v. Sturm, 673 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir. 2012) (en banc; interstate-content nexus sufficient under § 2252)
United States v. Aumais, 656 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2011) (proximate causation required in §2259)
United States v. Kennedy, 643 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2011) (restitution proximate-causation standards for victims)