United States v. Michael Schnittker, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20885

Federal agents seized two external hard drives (Western Digital and Maxtor) containing thousands of pornographic files, many of which were child pornography.
Grand jury indicted Schnittker on Count 1 (receipt, §2252(a)(2)) and Count 2 (possession, §2252(a)(4)).
Schnittker elected to plead guilty to Count 2 (possession) and proceed to trial on Count 1 (receipt). The written statement of facts and plea colloquy identified the Western Digital drive as the basis for the possession plea; the government told the court the Maxtor drive would support the receipt charge.
Government produced spreadsheets showing different file lists on each drive and informed defense it could use Maxtor files to support the receipt count; some files overlapped but many were non-duplicates.
After a bench trial the court convicted Schnittker of receipt based on Maxtor files. Schnittker moved to dismiss under the Double Jeopardy Clause, arguing his possession plea covered both drives; the district court denied the motion and convicted him.
Fourth Circuit reviews double jeopardy de novo and affirmed, concluding the plea covered Western Digital only and the receipt conviction relied on distinct Maxtor files.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecution/conviction for receipt after pleading guilty to possession violated Double Jeopardy	Prosecution barred because possession plea covered the same conduct/files as the receipt charge (including both drives)	Plea plainly limited to possession of files on the Western Digital drive; receipt prosecution relied on distinct Maxtor files	No double jeopardy violation; convictions involved distinct factual conduct
Whether possession is a lesser-included offense of receipt such that plea bars later receipt prosecution	(argued implicitly) same-in-law may apply	Court assumed without deciding same-in-law but focused on same-in-fact inquiry	Court assumed possible legal overlap but found offenses not the same in fact
Whether scope of plea is determined by indictment language alone or entire record	Plea might be read broadly from indictment and forfeiture language	Scope is an objective inquiry into entire record at time of plea	Scope assessed by entire record; objective actor would have understood plea limited to Western Digital
Whether superseding indictment date change created a separate prosecution for double jeopardy purposes	Argued that new dates could start a new prosecution barred by prior plea	Court found unnecessary to resolve because offenses were distinct in fact	Court declined to decide; resolution unnecessary once factual distinctness established

Studifin v. United States, 240 F.3d 415 (4th Cir.) (standard of de novo review for double jeopardy questions)
Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493 (prohibition on multiple punishments for same offense)
Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (multiple punishment analysis)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (same-offense legal test)
Benoit v. United States, 713 F.3d 1 (10th Cir.) (possession treated as lesser-included of receipt; scope-of-record inquiry)
Olmeda v. United States, 461 F.3d 271 (2d Cir.) (objective same-in-fact plea-scope test)
Polouizzi v. United States, 564 F.3d 142 (2d Cir.) (no double jeopardy where possession conviction based on images not used in receipt conviction)
Teague v. United States, 722 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir.) (distinct storage media may support distinct conduct)
Halliday v. United States, 672 F.3d 462 (7th Cir.) (separate videos/dates can establish distinct offenses)
Bobb v. United States, 577 F.3d 1366 (11th Cir.) (separate images/dates support separate conduct)