United States v. William McManus
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22102
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Defendant William McManus pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2); sentenced to 72 months’ imprisonment and 10 years’ supervised release. District court applied a five-level distribution enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B).
- McManus used the closed file‑sharing program Gigatribe, created a shared folder containing child pornography, and an FBI agent downloaded files from his account; no evidence other users downloaded from him or that any exchange occurred.
- § 2G2.2(b)(3) provides graduated enhancements for distribution: (A) pecuniary gain, (B) distribution for receipt/expectation of a thing of value (5 levels), (F) other distribution (2 levels, residual).
- The district court treated Gigatribe sharing as inherently reciprocal and applied the § (B) five‑level enhancement rather than the § (F) two‑level enhancement relied on in United States v. Layton.
- On appeal the Fourth Circuit reviewed Guideline interpretation de novo and found the Government failed to prove McManus distributed with the specific intent/expectation to receive a thing of value; it vacated and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov’t) | Defendant's Argument (McManus) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) five‑level enhancement applies to Gigatribe distribution | Gigatribe’s invitation/acceptance makes sharing inherently reciprocal so users expect to receive files; McManus knew Gigatribe sharing features | Gigatribe use at most shows distribution; no evidence McManus intended or expected a return exchange | The five‑level enhancement requires individualized proof of intent/expectation; Gigatribe use alone insufficient — enhancement improperly applied |
| Whether a per se rule applying § (B) to closed‑network sharing is permissible | Argues closed systems like Gigatribe justify per se rule for § (B) | Opposes per se rule; intent must be proven for each defendant | Per se rule rejected; mental‑state proof required for § (B) |
| What proof is required to trigger § (B) vs § (F) | Inherent reciprocity and knowledge of sharing features suffice | § (B) requires evidence defendant conditioned distribution on expectation of receiving value | § (B) requires: (1) knowingly made material available, and (2) did so with specific purpose/expectation of receiving a thing of value (more than hope) |
| Whether sentencing error was harmless given district court’s downward variance | Implicitly: sentence reasonable despite Guideline miscalculation | Error affected Guideline range; cannot be deemed harmless because lower sentence might have differed if correct range used | Error not harmless; vacated and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gall, 552 U.S. 38 (review of sentencing reasonableness standard)
- United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330 (4th Cir.) (passive permitting of access can trigger residual § (F) distribution enhancement)
- United States v. Geiner, 498 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir.) (expectation of receipt requires individualized proof; use alone insufficient)
- United States v. Spriggs, 666 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir.) (mere hope of reciprocity insufficient for § (B))
- United States v. Vadnais, 667 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir.) (logic requires more than sharing to trigger § (B))
- United States v. Grubbs, 585 F.3d 793 (4th Cir.) (government’s burden at sentencing: preponderance to support enhancements)
- United States v. Mehta, 594 F.3d 277 (4th Cir.) (harmlessness standard for sentencing error)