United States v. Craig Finley, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16614

Craig Finley was convicted in the Western District of Pennsylvania on four counts—production, receipt, distribution, and possession of material depicting the sexual exploitation of a minor—and was sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment plus a life term of supervised release.
Undercover FBI agents used GigaTribe to identify and access a user 'Boys4me2010' sharing child pornography; IP address traced to Armstrong Cable, with Finley identified as the owner.
Two seized Finley computers contained extensive child-pornography material, including a large repository and a GigaTribe account; police estimated hundreds of other users discussed sharing such material.
During trial, the government admitted numerous videos/images over Rule 403 objections; defense repeatedly objected to admission and asked for stipulation that the material was child pornography.
The court instructed that a sleeping child can engage in sexually explicit conduct under § 2251(a); Finley objected, and the jury convicted on all counts.
At sentencing, the court held Counts Two and Three were separate offenses for purposes of sentencing and imposed 70 years total maximum, ultimately imposing 50 years plus life supervision; Finley appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule 403 admission of videos/images	Finley claims the court failed to articulate a proper on-record Rule 403 balancing.	Government contends the court conducted a sufficient Rule 403 analysis and admitted evidence as probative.	Judgment affirmed; court's rulings upheld
Stipulation offer and probative value of images	Finley argues stipulation to content made images non-probative and unfairly prejudicial.	Government says stipulation offers do not bar admission; images remained probative for knowledge.	Images remained probative; no Rule 403 error
Sleeping child instruction under § 2251(a)	Finley contends sleeping child cannot engage in sexually explicit conduct under the statute.	Government asserts broad reading consistent with statute and policy; sleep status not dispositive.	District Court did not err interpreting 'engage in' to include sleeping child
Double Jeopardy: separate sentences for receipt and distribution	Finley argues § 2252(a)(2) creates one offense, so consecutive sentences violate double jeopardy.	Government argues § 2252(a)(2) creates distinct violations and that the facts show multiple violations not identical.	No double jeopardy violation; separate convictions sustained

Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2008) (3d Cir. 2008) (Rule 403 requires on-the-record balancing; deferential review)
Sampson, 980 F.2d 883 (3d Cir. 1992) (3d Cir. 1992) (procedural Rule 403 analysis must be on the record)
Pinney, 967 F.2d 912 (3d Cir. 1992) (3d Cir. 1992) (Rule 403 balancing must be apparent from the record)
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (U.S. 1997) (stipulations and evidentiary proof; robust evidence rule)
Cunningham v. United States, 694 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2012) (3d Cir. 2012) (admission of disturbing child-pornography requires scrutiny under Rule 403)
Morales-Aldahondo, 524 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2008) (1st Cir. 2008) (images may be admitted even if defendant offers to stipulate)
Polouizzi, 564 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2009) (2d Cir. 2009) (stipulations and Rule 403 considerations in child-pornography cases)
Ganoe, 538 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2008) (9th Cir. 2008) (stipulations and admissibility of child-pornography evidence)
Sewell, 457 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2006) (8th Cir. 2006) (admission of child-pornography evidence under Rule 403)
Vowell, 516 F.3d 503 (6th Cir. 2008) (6th Cir. 2008) (sleeping-child cases and admissibility context)
Wolf, 890 F.2d 241 (10th Cir. 1989) (10th Cir. 1989) (sleeping child considerations in child-pornography prosecutions)