United States v. Travis Winstead
16-50206
| 5th Cir. | Nov 7, 2017Background
- Travis Winstead was convicted by a jury of one count of receiving child pornography and two counts of possessing child pornography; district court sentenced him to 292 months.
- FBI agents interviewed Winstead while other agents searched his home; Winstead did not move to suppress the interview on Miranda grounds in district court.
- Indictment alleged receipt (Count I) and possession (Counts II–III) based on images/videos found on different computers and during different time periods.
- Presentence report and evidence showed Winstead used peer-to-peer software, altered default settings to limit but not eliminate uploads, and admitted understanding how such programs work.
- District court applied a five-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) for distribution expecting non-pecuniary return (additional images).
Issues
| Issue | Winstead's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interview evidence should be suppressed for lack of Miranda warnings | Miranda warnings required; evidence should be suppressed | Winstead waived issue by not moving to suppress; in any event not custodial interrogation | Waived; alternatively, no clear or obvious Miranda error because interview not shown to be custodial (affirmed) |
| Whether possessing child pornography is lesser-included of receiving, creating multiplicity/double jeopardy | Convictions multiplicitous; multiple punishments for same offense | Counts involved separate depictions/times/computers so different acts; jury charged on distinct elements | Waived as indictment challenge; but sentences not multiplicitous because offenses involved different acts/times (affirmed) |
| Whether five-level §2G2.2(b)(3)(B) enhancement for distribution was proper | Enhancement improper — did not knowingly distribute expecting return | Evidence showed use of peer-to-peer, altered settings, admitted understanding; that supports knowing distribution in exchange for images | Enhancement properly applied (affirmed) |
| Whether 292-month sentence is procedurally/substantively unreasonable or exceeds statutory maximum | Sentence excessive; Guidelines lack empirical basis; failed to account mitigation; exceeds necessity | Total statutory maximum = 720 months; court may impose consecutive sentences; within-Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable and properly balanced | Sentence within statutory maximum and within Guidelines; not substantively unreasonable (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chavez-Valencia, 116 F.3d 127 (5th Cir.) (waiver/forfeiture of suppression arguments)
- United States v. Pope, 467 F.3d 912 (5th Cir.) (custodial interrogation factors)
- United States v. Woerner, 709 F.3d 527 (5th Cir.) (de novo review of multiplicity and Blockburger framework)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (Sup. Ct.) (same-act test for multiplicity)
- United States v. Groce, 784 F.3d 291 (5th Cir.) (peer-to-peer distribution supports §2G2.2(b)(3)(B) enhancement)
- United States v. Heard, 709 F.3d 413 (5th Cir.) (consecutive sentences and aggregate Guidelines range)
- United States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114 (5th Cir.) (challenge to §2G2.2’s empirical basis insufficient to show substantive unreasonableness)