United States v. Sturm, 425 F. App'x 666

Sturm was convicted under 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(5)(B) and (a)(2)(B) for possession and receipt of child pornography, based on images found on a hard drive after an undercover investigation and a search of Sturm's home.
He used a subscription to a child-pornography website, accessing approximately 6500 images.
Jury trial lasted nine days; Sturm challenged jury instructions and the admissibility of a prior Ohio conviction under Rule 414.
The district court instructed that possession could occur without proving receipt, and rejected an instruction requiring intent to distribute for receipt.
The en banc court later reaffirmed convictions, holding (i) no intent-to-distribute is required for the receipt conviction, (ii) prior state conviction admissible under Rule 414, (iii) interstate-commerce proof tied to the visual depiction moving in commerce, and (iv) no Double Jeopardy violation for separate possession and receipt offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does §2252A(a)(2)(B) require intent to distribute for receipt?	Sturm argues receipt requires intent to distribute.	Government argues no such intent requirement in text.	No intent-to-distribute required; receipt conviction upheld.
Is a prior Ohio conviction admissible under Rule 414 as an offense of child molestation?	Sturm contends Ohio offense may not qualify under Rule 414(d)(2).	Government argues Ohio crime fits as an offense of child molestation under Rule 414.	Admissible; Ohio conviction qualifies under Rule 414(d)(2).
Must interstate commerce be shown for the specific image moved, not just the file?	Sturm argues only the specific image must have crossed state lines.	Government asserts the image, not merely the file, must travel interstate.	The visual image itself must have moved across state lines; specific-image requirement not met by mere viewing.
Do separate possession and receipt convictions violate Double Jeopardy?	Sturm asserts one act suffices for both offenses.	Government asserts distinct acts and statutes support separate convictions.	No; two distinct offenses and acts support separate convictions.

United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1994) (extended scienter requirements to age/sexually explicit context but not interstate-commerce element)
United States v. Schaefer, 501 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2007) (interstate-commerce proof required beyond mere internet viewing)
United States v. Davenport, 519 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2008) (propensity considerations for receipt/possession under Rule 414)
United States v. Enjady, 134 F.3d 1427 (10th Cir. 1998) (Rule 403 balancing for Rule 414 evidence)
United States v. Fabiano, 169 F.3d 1299 (10th Cir. 1999) (de novo/plain-error review of jury instructions involving scienter)