United States v. Bradley Abbring, 788 F.3d 565

Bradley Abbring downloaded >450 videos and ~1,000 photos of child pornography via the Ares peer-to-peer program over several years.
An undercover agent using Ares obtained viewable segments of multiple videos from a computer matching Abbring’s IP address; Abbring was arrested and pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A)).
Ares automatically shares files in users’ shared folders during downloads and does not permit disabling that automatic-sharing feature; users can move files out of shared folders only after downloads complete.
At sentencing the district court applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) for distribution because portions of files were transmitted to others while Abbring downloaded them; the court also denied a two-level reduction under § 2G2.2(b)(1) for conduct "limited to receipt or solicitation."
The district court calculated an advisory guidelines range of 151–188 months and imposed a below-guidelines sentence of 132 months.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether use of Ares and resulting transmissions constituted "distribution" under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F)	Government: Ares’ automatic sharing transmitted portions of files to others, satisfying the guideline’s definition of distribution	Abbring: He attempted to prevent sharing (moved files, interrupted downloads) and lacked intent to distribute, so his conduct was mere receipt	Court: Affirmed — automatic, knowing sharing during downloads qualifies as distribution; distributive intent not required
Whether Abbring was entitled to the § 2G2.2(b)(1) two-level reduction for conduct "limited to receipt or solicitation"	Abbring: His conduct was limited to receipt; he did not intend to traffic or distribute	Government: He made files available during downloads, so conduct exceeded mere receipt	Court: Affirmed denial — reduction requires both limitation to receipt and no intent to distribute; Abbring failed the receipt limitation

MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005) (describing peer-to-peer file-sharing software architecture)
United States v. Bolton, 669 F.3d 780 (6th Cir. 2012) (knowing sharing via peer-to-peer supports distribution enhancement)
United States v. Conner, [citation="521 F. App'x 493"] (6th Cir. 2013) (upholding distribution enhancement despite defendant’s attempts to limit sharing)
United States v. Gerick, [citation="568 F. App'x 405"] (6th Cir. 2014) (same)
United States v. Durham, 618 F.3d 921 (8th Cir. 2010) (peer-to-peer users may rebut knowing-distribution inference with concrete evidence of ignorance)
United States v. Dodd, 598 F.3d 449 (8th Cir. 2010) (peer-to-peer sharing can constitute distribution)
United States v. Fore, 507 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2007) (receipt-reduction requires both limitation to receipt and no intent to distribute)