United States v. Robert Baker
742 F.3d 618
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Baker installed Frostwire (a peer-to-peer file‑sharing program) and downloaded eight videos of child pornography.
- ICE agents downloaded child‑pornography files from an IP address traced to Baker using Frostwire.
- Baker pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography; no plea agreement on sentencing enhancements.
- The PSR recommended enhancements: +5 under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) (distribution for receipt of a thing of value) and alternatively +2 under § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) (distribution not to a minor or for value); the district court rejected +5 but applied +2.
- Baker argued he lacked knowledge that Frostwire allowed others to access his files, so he could not have “distributed” and should instead get a −2 under § 2G2.2(b)(1) for receipt only.
- The district court applied the +2 distribution enhancement; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) contains no scienter requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument (Baker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) requires mens rea (knowledge) to apply the +2 distribution enhancement | Government: the guideline does not require a mental state; Frostwire use that made files accessible supports distribution points | Baker: he did not know Frostwire allowed others to download his files, so he did not knowingly distribute | Held: No scienter required; +2 may apply based on conduct (use of file‑sharing that made files accessible) |
| Whether Baker was entitled to a −2 under § 2G2.2(b)(1) for conduct limited to receipt | Government: inapplicable because conduct constituted distribution | Baker: his conduct was only receipt, so reduction applies | Held: Inapplicable because distribution enhancement applied, so no −2 |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Serfass, 684 F.3d 548 (5th Cir. 2012) (use plain‑language interpretive principles for Guidelines)
- United States v. Reingold, 731 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2013) (use of "any" and "including" indicates broad, illustrative coverage)
- United States v. Ramos, 695 F.3d 1035 (10th Cir. 2012) (placing material in a publicly accessible location can constitute distribution)
- United States v. Ray, 704 F.3d 1307 (10th Cir. 2013) (held § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) does not require mens rea)
- Singleton v. United States, 946 F.2d 23 (5th Cir. 1991) (drafters’ explicit mens rea in neighboring provisions shows omission elsewhere is intentional)
- Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994) (general presumption that crimes require mens rea)