United States v. Lawson Hardrick, Jr., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17254

DHS identified two IP addresses at Hardrick's home used to share child pornography; agents seized two home-office computers with multiple such videos.
Hardrick admitted using LimeWire but denied downloading child pornography; claimed some downloads were incidental while accessing other files.
Indictment charged two counts of knowingly receiving visual depictions of minors in sexually explicit conduct under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and two counts of possessing under § 2252(a)(4)(B); trial on receipt counts proceeded.
The district court admitted uncharged child-pornography videos found on Hardrick's computers under Rule 404(b) to prove knowledge and lack of mistake, with a limiting instruction and light restrictions on presentation.
Evidence included “Questionable Videos” and “Questionable Movies” lists, MRU data, and thumbcache testimony suggesting opened views of such material; only charged videos were shown to the jury.
Hardrick was convicted on both receipt counts and sentenced to 120 months; the verdict and sentence were appealed challenging the 404(b) admission and sufficiency of evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 404(b) evidence was properly admitted	Hardrick argues unfair prejudice and improper balance under 403.	Hardrick contends 404(b) was probative of knowledge but prejudicial and not properly limited.	No reversible error; probative value outweighed prejudice and limiting instruction adequate.
Whether limiting instruction on 404(b) was sufficient	Hardrick asserts insufficient contemporaneous limiting instruction.	District court gave Ninth Circuit Model 4.3 and tailored it; no sua sponte instruction needed.	Instruction was sufficient; no reversible error for lack of sua sponte instruction.
Sufficiency of evidence for knowledge/receiving	Hardrick contends no direct evidence of downloading; could be accidental or hacker.	Hardrick argues lack of direct proof; necessity of depending on inference.	Sufficient circumstantial evidence supported knowledge and receipt conviction.
Abuse of discretion in admitting uncharged videos	Holds admission prejudicial and improper.	Admissible to prove knowledge and lack of accident.	District court did not abuse its discretion.

United States v. Ramirez-Robles, 386 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 2004) (four-part 404(b) test and admissibility framework)
United States v. Curtin, 489 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc; 404(b) balancing standards)
United States v. Vo, 413 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2005) (propensity vs. non-propensity purposes under 404(b))
United States v. Montgomery, 150 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 1998) (four-part test for admissibility of 404(b) evidence)
United States v. Fuchs, 218 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2000) (knowledge and similarity considerations under 404(b))
United States v. Blitz, 151 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 1998) (probative value vs. prejudice balancing standard)
United States v. Ganoe, 538 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2008) (limiting 404(b) evidence and brief commentary on location/file names)
United States v. Restrepo, 884 F.2d 1294 (9th Cir. 1989) (sua sponte limiting instruction and 404(b) considerations)
United States v. Unruh, 855 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1987) (trial court's limiting instruction; defense failure to object)
United States v. Budziak, 697 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of sufficiency of evidence)
Cordova Barajas v. United States, 360 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2004) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency standard)