United States v. Halliday
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2850
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Halliday married in 2007, moved into his wife's residence, and used Lime-Wire to download films including child pornography.
- Investigator remotely downloaded seven files in May and six files in July 2008 from Halliday's computer; later 15 videos were found on the Halliday computer with dates spanning April 20 to May 27, 2008.
- Halliday was interviewed; he initially claimed it was accidental but admitted using terms like 'underage' and taking responsibility for the material.
- Indictment charged two counts of receipt of child pornography (on or before April 20, 2008 and on or before May 27, 2008) and one count of possession (on or between April 20, 2008 and May 27, 2008).
- Jury convicted Halliday on all three counts; district court sentenced him to a total of 240 months (concurrent on receipt counts and possession count) plus 15 years of supervised release.
- Halliday appeals arguing double jeopardy and challenging the sentence as based on erroneous assumptions; court affirms convictions but vacates and remands for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether separate convictions for receipt and possession violate double jeopardy | Halliday contends possession is lesser-included of receipt. | Halliday argues multiple punishments for same conduct. | No reversible error; separate convictions sustained as based on distinct conduct. |
| Whether the within-Guidelines sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable due to improper factors | Halliday argues sentencing relied on improper assumptions about his beliefs. | Halliday contends sentence was too harsh given similar cases. | Plain error found; remand for resentencing without the improper assumption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (two offenses require proof of different facts to be separate)
- Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 (1985) (receiving vs. possessing firearms; possible separate punishments unless same act)
- Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (1977) (joyriding is lesser included of auto theft in multi-proceedings)
- Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (1996) (Blockburger test applied to determine two offenses vs. one)
- United States v. Myers, 355 F.3d 1040 (2004) (receipt vs. possession distinct for base levels; scienter differences)
- United States v. Malik, 385 F.3d 758 (2004) (reaffirms Myers on distinctness of receipt vs. possession)
- United States v. Watzman, 486 F.3d 1004 (2007) (possession vs. receipt scienter issue; addressed under Blockburger framework)