United States v. Bolton
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1098
6th Cir.2012Background
- Bolton pled guilty to knowing possession of child pornography transported via computer, downloaded with Ares peer-to-peer program.
- Probation recommended a two-level enhancement under USSG § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) for distribution; Bolton objected, arguing no evidence of intent to distribute via Ares.
- District court overruled Bolton's objection and imposed a 72-month sentence and eight years' supervised release.
- Guidelines range was 108–120 months; Bolton's sentence was well below that range.
- Evidence included Bolton's use of Ares, installation on his own laptop, and removal of Limewire from his girlfriend's laptop, with girlfriend testifying that Ares shared files.
- The Fourth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits have split on whether mere use of file-sharing programs suffices to prove distribution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) applies to possession convictions based on file sharing. | Bolton: distribution enhancement requires intent; no adequate showing of intent. | US: no mens rea for § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F); evidence showed Bolton knew files were shared. | Yes; evidence supports distribution enhancement for possession conviction. |
| Whether the district court erred by treating mere use of a P2P network as distribution. | Bolton: mere use insufficient without explicit intent to distribute. | US: program usage suffices under the guideline; intent not required. | District court did not err to apply enhancement based on use and knowledge of sharing. |
| Whether Bolton's conviction and sentence are reasonable under appellate review standards. | Bolton challenges procedural reasonableness because of misapplication of the guideline. | US argues the district court adequately explained and followed de novo review of guidelines. | Conviction and sentence affirmed as reasonable under applicable standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lanning, 633 F.3d 469 (6th Cir. 2011) (reasonableness review of sentencing)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (reasonableness review components, procedural and substantive)
- United States v. Deitz, 577 F.3d 672 (6th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of guidelines application; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Durham, 618 F.3d 921 (8th Cir. 2010) (case-by-case, fact-intensive analysis of file-sharing distribution)
- United States v. Ultsch, 578 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2009) (need for concrete evidence of knowledge/ignorance in file-sharing context)
- United States v. Estey, 595 F.3d 836 (8th Cir. 2010) (definition of distribution in file-sharing cases)
- United States v. Dodd, 598 F.3d 449 (8th Cir. 2010) (new standard requiring evidence of knowledge in file-sharing cases)
- United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2009) (autonomy of distribution in file-sharing contexts)