United States v. Kyle Soto, 58 F.4th 977

FBI/ICAC investigation found Kyle Soto using the email "shane118@gmail.com" to solicit sexually explicit images and videos from multiple minors; one minor (W.S.) was 11.
Law enforcement seized Soto’s devices (Dell desktop, G930A phone, L710 phone, Kodak camera) and online accounts (Google Drive, Dropbox) containing numerous child‑pornography images and videos tied to several victims.
Split‑screen video chats and other circumstantial evidence (a photo in the Shane118 account, matching clothing, ex‑wife identifying Soto’s penis) linked Soto and his household to the recorded conduct.
A grand jury indicted Soto on 15 counts including sexual exploitation, attempted sexual exploitation, enticement, two counts of receipt of child pornography (different accounts), and one count of possession of child pornography (material on his devices).
The jury convicted Soto on all counts; the district court sentenced him to concurrent 30‑year terms on most counts and the statutory 20‑year maximum on the possession count.
On appeal Soto challenged sufficiency of the evidence (pro se), argued double jeopardy (receipt vs. possession based on same material), and argued his 20‑year possession sentence violated Apprendi; the court affirmed convictions but vacated the possession sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Soto: evidence does not prove he was the perpetrator; ages of A.R. and Star Pants not established	Government: ownership of accounts/devices, video chat links, witness testimony and birth certificates, and images themselves support convictions	Evidence sufficient; convictions affirmed
Double Jeopardy (receipt vs. possession)	Soto: cannot be convicted of both receipt and possession based on the same images; requested limiting instruction	Government: indictment, evidence, and closing distinguished materials supporting receipt (online accounts) from possession (materials on Soto’s devices)	No plain error; convictions for both upheld because jury could rely on different materials
Sentencing/Apprendi	Soto: 20‑year sentence for possession exceeds jury‑found statutory maximum because jury did not find images involved prepubescent or under‑12 victim	Government: (argued facts supported higher range but jury made no explicit finding)	Apprendi applies; because jury made no finding of qualifying minor, statutory maximum is 10 years; possession sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing statutory maximum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
United States v. Little, 961 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
United States v. Vig, 167 F.3d 443 (8th Cir. 1999) (images themselves can suffice to show victims are minors)
United States v. Broyles, 37 F.3d 1314 (8th Cir. 1994) (courts may rely on photographic evidence to infer age)
United States v. Koch, 625 F.3d 470 (8th Cir. 2010) (upholding convictions where images were primary evidence of age)
United States v. Muhlenbruch, 634 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2011) (possession is lesser‑included offense of receipt for double jeopardy purposes)
United States v. Morrissey, 895 F.3d 541 (8th Cir. 2018) (plain‑error review when defendant fails to request limiting jury instruction)
United States v. Hill, 750 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2014) (distinguishing items across counts can avoid double‑jeopardy problems)