United States v. Richards, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21465

Richards was convicted on eleven counts of child-pornography offenses after an FBI investigation into his online activities.
He operated multiple websites hosting or linking to child pornography and maintained servers with thousands of files and cross-promotional content.
The government seized a BlackSun server hosting JustinsFriends sites; a warrant authorized broad imaging of the server contents.
District court denied suppression of the server search and allowed broad server imaging due to anticipated hidden or mislabeled files and unallocated space.
Rule 16 discovery disputes arose over identifying thousands of images the government would use, with extensive disclosures and defense review.
On appeal, the government cross-appeals the district court’s sentence as substantively unreasonable, while Richards challenges multiple trial rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the BlackSun server search was overbroad under the Fourth Amendment.	Richards argues the warrant exceeded probable cause by seizing the entire server.	Richards contends the scope was too broad given server structure and lack of owner control data.	No overbreadth; search reasonable under case-by-case rule.
Rule 16 discovery compliance and identification of images.	Government complied but defense argues failure to identify specific images per count.	Richards argues discovery was disorganized and insufficiently targeted.	No abuse; discovery complied and accommodated; proportional identification allowed.
Admission of age-labeled discs and hearsay implications.	Disc labels authenticated by Lombardi; aids jury understanding.	Labels are hearsay; risk of prejudicing the jury.	No plain error; labeling was cumulative and non-prejudicial.
Multiplicities: counts 1 and 16 for CaseyandKylesCondo.com vs CaseysCondo.com.	Different websites constituted separate offenses; aimed to halt dissemination.	Renaming/rehabilitation of the same site could be multiplicitous.	Not multiplicitous; separate operations and domains justify multiple counts.
Substantive reasonableness of Richards' sentence given the Guidelines range and factors.	Government contends downward variance undercuts seriousness and public safety.	Richards argues the district court erred in its balancing of § 3553(a) factors.	Sentence not an abuse of discretion; within Booker-authorized latitude.

United States v. Lucas, 640 F.3d 168 (6th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing district court findings of fact and law in suppression)
United States v. Greene, 250 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2001) (particularity and scope of warrants; flexible standard)
United States v. Upham, 168 F.3d 532 (1st Cir. 1999) (scope of seizure and breadth of computer searches)
United States v. Burgess, 576 F.3d 1078 (10th Cir. 2009) (reasonableness of computer searches; no rigid protocol)
Warshak v. United States, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) (electronic discovery handling and disclosure practices)
Guest v. Leis, 255 F.3d 325 (6th Cir. 2001) (scope and limits of warrant-based searches)
United States v. Adjani, 452 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2006) (searches of computers located on premises with probable cause)