United States v. Haymond, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16747

Haymond was convicted in 2010 of possession/attempted possession of child pornography and sentenced to 38 months’ imprisonment plus 10 years’ supervised release.
In 2015 probation officers searched his apartment and seized Haymond’s password-protected Samsung Android phone; forensic extraction showed 59 images the FBI identified as child pornography and web history for Oct. 21, 2015.
Expert testimony (defense) explained Android’s Gallery3D cache may automatically create thumbnails from images on the device and that thumbnails alone do not prove user knowledge or volitional download.
The district court found by a preponderance that Haymond violated five supervised-release conditions and specifically concluded Haymond knowingly possessed 13 images in the phone’s Gallery cache; it imposed the mandatory minimum five-year reimprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k).
On appeal the Tenth Circuit held the factual record (exclusive phone use, images on phone, similarity to prior conviction images) was sufficient by a preponderance to support knowing possession of the 13 gallery images, but concluded § 3583(k)’s mandatory-minimum provision is unconstitutional.

Issue	Haymond’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that Haymond knowingly possessed child pornography on phone	Cache thumbnails do not prove knowledge or volitional act; insufficient by preponderance	Thumbnails + exclusive possession + similarity to prior images support inference of knowing possession	Court: Evidence was close but sufficient by a preponderance to support knowing possession of the 13 gallery images
Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) (mandatory ≥5-year reimprisonment upon certain subsequent offenses)	§ 3583(k) unconstitutional: raises mandatory minimum based on judge-found facts and punishes new conduct without jury trial; violates Fifth and Sixth Amendments	Alleyne/Apprendi/Booker do not apply to revocation; revocation is not a criminal prosecution and judge may impose revocation sanctions by preponderance	Court: § 3583(k) unconstitutional in its mandatory-minimum sentences tied to subsequent conduct; vacated Haymond’s sentence and remanded for resentencing under § 3583(e)(3)

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (criminal fact increasing penalty must be submitted to a jury)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (any fact increasing mandatory minimum must be found by a jury)
Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (sentencing judge must retain discretion; Guidelines advisory)
Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (postrevocation penalties are part of original sentence; constitutional concerns if treated as punishment for new conduct)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (revocation proceedings are not criminal prosecutions; due process governs)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for criminal conviction)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (facts increasing punishment are subject to jury determination)
United States v. Collins, 859 F.3d 1207 (revocation penalties must be tied to original offense severity, not new conduct)