United States v. James Dale Little
864 F.3d 1283
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- In December 2012 Little received an email (while in Texas) with multiple child‑pornography images; he did not delete it and kept the email in his account.
- Little moved to Tampa, Florida on December 26, 2012, and exchanged emails with Dominic Hall about trading images.
- On January 26, 2013, while in Tampa, Little forwarded an image of child pornography to Hall from the same email account; he later admitted he had received that image earlier and then forwarded it.
- Federal indictment charged Little with transporting child pornography (Jan 26, 2013) and possessing child pornography (Dec 21, 2012 through Jan 26, 2013). He was convicted by a jury in the Middle District of Florida.
- At sentencing the court applied a five‑level § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) enhancement for distribution expecting a thing of value (i.e., image‑for‑image trades) and a two‑level § 2G2.2(b)(6) enhancement for computer use; Little objected to both enhancements and raised venue and joinder/severance challenges.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: venue and sufficiency as to the possession count were proper (constructive possession and possession of the Jan 26 image in Tampa supported venue), joinder was proper and not plainly prejudicial, and both sentencing enhancements were upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Little's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue was proper in Middle District of Florida for the possession count | Venue improper because the Dec 21 images were received/opened in Texas and there was no evidence he accessed those attachments in Tampa | Venue proper because Little possessed (and forwarded) a different image while in Tampa and also constructively possessed the Dec 21 attachments via his ability and intent to access them from servers | Venue proper: possession of the Jan 26 image in Tampa alone sufficed; constructive possession of Dec 21 attachments also supported venue |
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession count | Insufficient: no proof he possessed Dec 21 attachments in Tampa | Sufficient: possession of Jan 26 image (when emailed) and constructive possession of server‑stored Dec 21 images | Evidence sufficient; judgment of acquittal properly denied |
| Whether counts should have been severed | Joinder prejudicial because counts concerned different acts/times | Counts properly joined under Rule 8(a); jury instructions mitigated prejudice under Rule 14(a) | No plain error in denying severance; no compelling prejudice |
| Whether sentencing enhancements applied correctly (distribution-for‑value and computer use) | Distribution enhancement unsupported by evidence of expectation to receive images; computer enhancement causes impermissible double counting | Email exchange shows expectation to trade images; computer use is an offense characteristic not fully accounted for in base offense level | Both enhancements affirmed: evidence showed expectation to trade; computer enhancement not double counting |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hough, 803 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2015) (standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal)
- United States v. Breitweiser, 357 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2004) (venue and Sixth Amendment trial‑in‑district principles)
- United States v. Glover, 431 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2005) (actual vs. constructive possession framework)
- United States v. Bender, 290 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2002) (trading child pornography constitutes distribution for receipt/expectation of a thing of value)
- United States v. Dudley, 463 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2006) (test for impermissible double counting in Guidelines)