United States v. Kevin Sheldon, 730 F.3d 1128

Defendant Kevin Michael Sheldon lived with family in Montana and was asked to move out after inappropriately touching a minor.
A family video recorder contained multiple videos of minors nude and simulating sexual activity; police seized Sheldon's computer and external hard drive, finding 41 images of child pornography.
Two minor girls testified that Sheldon showed them internet pornography, asked them to make nude videos, and prompted sexual language; Sheldon did not view the videos at issue.
Sheldon was indicted for sexual exploitation of a child (18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)) and knowingly receiving child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)); a jury convicted on both counts and the district court sentenced him to 480 months.
At trial the government introduced evidence that the video recorder used to make the videos was manufactured in China and admitted a prior 1998 conviction for possession of child pornography under Rule 414.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2251(a) requires knowledge that materials used to produce images had traveled in interstate commerce	Gov't: Knowledge need only be proven as to the first jurisdictional alternative when specified	Sheldon: § 2251(a) requires proof he knew materials had traveled in interstate commerce	Court: § 2251(a) does not require knowledge of interstate nexus for the materials; the statute’s clauses are independent alternatives, so knowledge applies only to the first clause
Admissibility of prior child-pornography conviction under Rule 414	Gov't: Prior conviction is admissible to show propensity in child-molestation cases	Sheldon: Admission was an abuse of discretion and unfairly prejudicial	Court: Admission was proper; district court balanced Lemay factors and gave limiting instruction
Sufficiency of evidence that videos were "sexually explicit" under § 2251(a)	Gov't: Videos depicted nudity and sexual discussion sufficient for "lascivious exhibition"	Sheldon: Videos were not sexually explicit enough to support conviction	Court: Viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational jury could find sexually explicit conduct; conviction stands

United States v. Terrell, 700 F.3d 755 (5th Cir. 2012) (held § 2251(a) does not require knowledge of interstate nature beyond first clause)
United States v. Smith, 459 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2006) (interpreting § 2251(a) as three independent jurisdictional alternatives)
United States v. Overton, 573 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 2009) (standards for determining "lascivious exhibition" and sufficiency review)
United States v. Lemay, 260 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2001) (factors for admitting prior acts under Rule 414)
United States v. Dahl, 314 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2002) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)