United States v. Dudeck, 657 F.3d 424

Dudeck pled guilty to three counts: receipt of visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, receipt and/or distribution of child pornography, and possession of child pornography.
District court imposed concurrent 120-month sentences on all three counts after adjusting the Guidelines offense level to 30 and a criminal history category I.
The government argued separate conduct underlies the receipt and possession convictions; the district court did not determine whether the counts rested on distinct acts.
The presentence report suggested separate acts might underlie the receipt versus possession counts, though the plea agreement and indictment did not specify this.
Dudeck challenged the sentences as unreasonable and argued double jeopardy barred convictions for all three counts.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit remanded to determine whether separate conduct supported the receipt and possession convictions and whether Counts One and Two rested on distinct acts or images.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether double jeopardy bars concurrent receipt and possession counts.	Dudeck contends the possession count is a lesser‑included offense of receipt and thus violates double jeopardy.	The government argues separate conduct underlies the counts, permitting multiple punishments.	Remanded for fact‑finding to determine separate conduct; potential vacatur if same conduct underlies counts.
Whether separate acts or images support counts for receipt, possession, and distribution.	Record insufficient to prove separate acts; consolidation violates multiplicity rules.	Record shows temporal and substantive distinctions between receipt/distribution and possession.	Remanded to district court to determine if separate acts or images exist for each conviction.
Whether, if convictions remain, the 120‑month sentence is reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).	Sentence is overly harsh and not adequately tied to § 3553(a) factors.	District court properly considered § 3553(a) factors; within Guidelines range; reasonable.	Sentence affirmed if convictions stand; logically consistent with factors; but remand may affect the sentence.

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (multiplicity test: each offense requires proof of a fact the other does not)
United States v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1980) (elements test for double jeopardy)
Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1983) (Congressional intent governs multiple punishment under separate statutes)
United States v. DeCarlo, 434 F.3d 447 (6th Cir. 2006) (dual punishments analyzed under Blockburger; separate conduct possible)
United States v. Schales, 546 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2008) (possession may be lesser‑included of receipt; remand for factual basis)
United States v. Ehle, 640 F.3d 689 (6th Cir. 2011) (possession is a lesser‑included offense of receipt under § 2252A)
United States v. Bobb, 577 F.3d 1366 (11th Cir. 2009) (convictions permissible if indictment supports separate acts)
United States v. Miller, 527 F.3d 54 (3d Cir. 2008) (possession generally lesser‑included but may coexist with receipt on separate facts)
United States v. Polouizzi, 564 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2009) (convictions for receipt and possession upheld when facts show separate files)
United States v. Faulds, 612 F.3d 566 (7th Cir. 2010) (convictions for distribution and possession analyzed on timing and separate acts)