United States v. Jason Scott
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7044
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Jason Scott pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B)) after an earlier conviction and sentence were vacated; resentenced to 108 months and lifetime supervised release.
- Agents using LimeWire (peer-to-peer file‑sharing) downloaded three child‑pornography videos from a ‘‘shared’’ folder on Scott’s computer; forensic exam confirmed Internet downloads.
- PSR applied a five‑level Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) (distribution for receipt/expectation of a thing of value); Scott objected and argued the two‑level § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) applied instead.
- District court overruled the objection, relying on Fifth Circuit precedent that operating P2P software can constitute distribution and equate to an exchange for more pornography, and imposed lifetime special‑condition bans on any internet‑capable computer access and any unsupervised contact with minors.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held the record lacked findings that Scott knowingly used LimeWire in the reciprocal sense required for the five‑level enhancement, and found the two lifetime supervisory conditions plainly erroneous under recent Fifth Circuit precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Scott's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of 5‑level § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) enhancement | Scott: No evidence he knew files were shared or that he expected to receive anything; only convicted of possession | Gov: Using LimeWire equates to agreeing to share in exchange for more files; enhancement appropriate | Remanded: district court must determine (and make/findings) whether Gov proved Scott knowingly used LimeWire in the reciprocal exchange sense required for (B) |
| Whether operation of P2P software alone triggers (B) | Scott: Mere use ≠ knowing distribution for receipt | Gov: Knowing use of P2P implies an exchange and supports (B) | Court: (B) requires proof of knowledge; operation alone insufficient without findings of knowledge; apply Groce framework |
| Lifetime ban on access to any internet‑capable computer as supervised‑release condition | Scott: Overbroad, not narrowly tailored, deprives liberty | Gov: Argued condition appropriate given offense | Vacated: Fifth Circuit held such unconditional lifetime bans are clearly erroneous; remanded for resentencing with ability to tailor scope/duration |
| Lifetime ban on any unsupervised contact with minors | Scott: Overbroad given lack of child‑abuse history | Gov: Condition protects public safety | Vacated: Found unreasonably broad and plainly erroneous on these facts; district court may reimpose narrower/limited conditions on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Groce, 784 F.3d 291 (5th Cir. 2015) (interpreting § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) to require knowing use of P2P software amounting to exchange for additional files)
- United States v. Baker, 742 F.3d 618 (5th Cir. 2014) (distribution via file‑sharing programs includes operating software that places files in shared folders)
- United States v. Duke, 788 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 2015) (rejecting unconditional lifetime computer and association bans as not narrowly tailored)
- United States v. Juarez, 626 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 2010) (government bears preponderance burden to prove sentencing enhancements)