United States v. Estes, 5:09-cr-50088

Estes moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 after a 2010 conviction for child pornography offenses (Counts 1–6) and related Count 7 in the Western District of Arkansas.
Jury trial occurred December 9–10, 2009; Estes challenged jury instructions, notably Element 2 (use of interstate/foreign commerce) and the court’s handling of the jury’s questions.
The Court instructed four elements for Counts 1–6 and for Count 7, including specific physical evidence and interstate/foreign commerce involvement; the internet was characterized as a facility of interstate commerce.
The jury convicted Estes on all counts on December 10, 2009; a PSR and victim-impact statements were later considered at sentencing.
Estes received concurrent terms: 262 months (Counts 1–6), 240 months (Count 7), life supervised release, $20,000 fine, and $700 special assessment; he appealed and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule on ground three about jury instruction response	Estes contends the court’s response improperly highlighted Element 2.	Estes’ counsel argued the response called unnecessary attention to Element 2.	Procedural default; no abuse of discretion or reversible error shown.
Whether attaching victim impact statements to the PSR was improper	Estes argues attachment was improper and prejudicial.	Government contends no reversible error.	Grounds One and Two rejected; §2255 relief not available for these on collateral review.
Whether the jury’s question during deliberations tainted verdict	Estes asserts improper guidance affected due process.	Court properly redirected; instruction compliant with case law.	No reversible error; not a basis for §2255 relief.

Sun Bear v. United States, 644 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2011) (limitations on §2255 for relitigation on direct appeal)
United States v. Moss, 252 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2001) (procedural default rules for collateral review)
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (actual innocence exception to procedural default)
Swedzinski v. United States, 160 F.3d 498 (8th Cir. 1998) (defaulted claims require cause and prejudice or actual innocence)
United States v. Planas, 884 F. Supp. 1493 (D. Kan. 1995) (counsel's ineffective advice to appeal not per se cause)
United States v. Abdul–Aziz, 486 F.3d 471 (8th Cir. 2007) (courts may refer jury to original instructions in response to questions)
Monteer v. Benson, 574 F.2d 447 (8th Cir. 1978) (improper jury instructions generally not cognizable in §2255)
Catches v. United States, 582 F.2d 453 (8th Cir. 1978) (collateral relief not substitute for direct appeal)
Jackson v. United States, 495 F.2d 349 (8th Cir. 1974) (limitations on using §2255 for trial errors)
Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424 (1962) (standard for fundamental defects in jury instructions)
Merrill v. United States, 599 F.2d 240 (8th Cir. 1979) (reaffirmed limits on collateral relief for jury instruction errors)