United States v. Ronald Miltier
882 F.3d 81
4th Cir.2018Background
- FBI downloaded child‑pornography files from an IP address assigned to Ronald Miltier; agents later executed a search warrant at his home and seized an Acer laptop and a PNY thumb drive with illicit images.
- Forensic evidence linked the Acer laptop to Miltier (single user account with his name/email, usage admissions, searches related to his life/work) and showed most illicit files were created in the Ares peer‑to‑peer "MY SHARED FILES" folder; some downloads had timestamps and Ares download records.
- A superseding indictment charged seven counts of receipt (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A)) and one count of possession (§ 2252A(a)(5)(B)) based on ten video files found on the Acer computer; jury convicted on all eight counts.
- Miltier moved for judgment of acquittal arguing insufficient evidence he knowingly received/possessed the files and insufficient interstate‑commerce nexus for two receipt counts; he also challenged a jury instruction permitting the interstate nexus to be satisfied by prior interstate movement of the computer.
- The district court denied motions; the Fourth Circuit reviewed sufficiency de novo and instructions for legal error/abuse of discretion and affirmed the convictions and instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Miltier) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — knowledge element for receipt/possession | Evidence did not show Miltier knew the files were sexually explicit/minor‑involved; timestamps show he was at work when downloads completed | Forensic linkage to Miltier (account, searches, admissions, Ares use, explicit search terms, temporal correlation) supports a rational juror finding knowledge | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to show knowing receipt/possession |
| Sufficiency — interstate‑commerce nexus for Counts One & Five | Two files lacked Ares downloaded‑file list entries; no proof those files came over the internet | Files were in Ares data (Recycle Bin), created in MY SHARED FILES (Ares default), Ares deletions/reinstalls explain omissions; circumstantial inference supports internet download | Affirmed — evidence sufficient that files were received via means affecting interstate commerce |
| Jury instruction — can interstate nexus be satisfied by prior interstate movement of computer? | Statute requires the files themselves moved in interstate commerce; prior movement of a computer cannot satisfy § 2252A(a)(2)(A) | Statute uses "in or affecting interstate commerce" and Congress may regulate instrumentalities; legislative history, parallel subsections, and precedent allow computer movement to satisfy nexus | Affirmed — court may instruct that prior interstate movement of a computer satisfies the interstate nexus requirement |
| Constructive amendment / Grand Jury notice | Instruction broadened basis of conviction beyond indictment (which alleged internet receipt) and violated Fifth Amendment | Instruction was a permissible variance; defendant had notice and actually litigated computer manufacture/commerce nexus (Count Eight and trial evidence) and was not prejudiced | Affirmed — instructional language was a nonfatal variance and not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ellyson, 326 F.3d 522 (4th Cir. 2003) (internet transmission circumstantial evidence can satisfy interstate‑commerce element)
- United States v. Ramos, 685 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2012) (prior interstate movement of computer can satisfy child‑pornography statute nexus)
- United States v. Schene, 543 F.3d 627 (10th Cir. 2008) (hard drive manufactured abroad satisfies interstate‑commerce nexus for possession)
- United States v. Matthews, 209 F.3d 338 (4th Cir. 2000) (defendant must know materials are sexually explicit and involve minors)
- United States v. Paige, 604 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2010) (intrastate child‑pornography activities substantially affect interstate market)
- United States v. Forrest, 429 F.3d 73 (4th Cir. 2005) (Congress had rational basis to regulate local production/possession of child pornography)
- Lopez v. United States, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (limits and standards for Congress's Commerce Clause authority)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (Congress may regulate local activities that are part of an economic class of activities substantially affecting interstate commerce)
- Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977) ("in commerce or affecting commerce" signals Congress's intent to reach broadly)
- Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001) (language "affecting commerce" indicates regulation to outer Commerce Clause limits)