United States v. Greg Moore

any privileged Accordingly, sion of from disclo- judg- court’s application sure. The of this rule therefore ment is REVERSED and the cause RE- require an amendment of the MANDED proceedings would not consistent with pleadings, simply opinion. left for but would this plaintiff sought

resolution when the to in- challenged

troduce the statements at trial.

Thus, delay asserting privilege perhaps

aas formal defense is more under- light

standable in of the ill-defined nature application privilege. We note the trial also seems have America, UNITED STATES uncertainty entertained considerable as to Plaintiff-Appellee, applicability and nature of the immuni- ty being involved here. That the case and especially light any in the of the absence MOORE, Greg Defendant-Appellant. prejudice plaintiff untimely to the from the No. 89-6581. privilege, assertion of the absolute we are persuaded Sargent Lundy Appeals, Court of & should Sixth permitted interpose have Circuit. de- ruling fense. The district court’s that an Argued July 1990. untimely amendment would be therefore Decided Oct. cannot stand. Rehearing Denied Nov. reasons, many

For of the same in conclud believe the district court erred

ing untimely was an motion motion judgment pleadings. on the Fed.R. 12(c) any party may provides that

Civ.P. judgment pleadings

move for a on the after pleadings

“the are closed but within such delay

time the trial.” do as not

dispute the district court’s conclusion that

granting the motion would amount to a

judgment pleadings on the since General apparently proffer

Electric could no non-

privileged support theory. statements to its fact, General Electric admits that Sar

gent Lundy’s pre-August & statements to

Kentucky were true. Utilities

The district court’s error lies in the con- delay

clusion that the barred the considera- Again,

tion of the motion. General Electric argue prejudiced that it in the

does not case,

prosecution of its nor does General that the district court lacked

Electric claim predicate

a sufficient factual to make this light of our conclu-

legal determination. Sargent Lundy’s

sion that & motion is well-

supported Electric’s failure to and General any prejudice caused

articulate a basis for delay, alleged untimeliness of

by the of this

the motion is no bar to the dismissal

suit. Brown, Atty. (argued), Wen- U.S. Joe Nashville, Atty., Asst. U.S. Goggin,

dy Tenn., plaintiff-appellee. Nashville, (argued), Wehby E. Vincent defendant-appellant. Tenn., for GUY, Circuit KEITH Before BROWN, Senior Circuit Judges, and Judge. Judge.

KEITH, Circuit ap- (“Moore”) Greg Defendant December court’s from the peals orders commitment judgment receiving, knowingly guilty of finding him mail, a video through the United depictions of minors containing visual tape For sexually explicit conduct. engaged below, AFFIRM reasons stated REMAND.

I.

A. indicted April Dis- Middle Jury Federal Grand count, the single In a of Tennessee. trict knowingly charged Moore indictment supposed to dis- day is the date we are de- containing visual tape receiving a video sexually ex- case. pose minors pictions conduct, by 18 U.S.C. defined plicit “J.A.”). (hereinafter Appendix at Joint transported, 2256.1 The origi- initiated the trial as The district court mail, from the through the United States and, September on nally scheduled Nashville, Ten- seller, located who was guilty a verdict. jury returned resided in Moore, nessee, buyer free bond until he was on Moore remained Tennessee, of 18 in violation all Corryton, fifteen sentenced, on December 2252(a)(2).2 U.S.C. § incarceration, by three months of followed July on to dismiss a motion Moore filed supervised release.4 years of outrageous 27, 1989, entrapment, alleging timely appeal notice on filed a of conduct, predisposition, lack of government December 1989. single to a inapplicability of § After ordering of act response and receiving Government’s 28, 1989, August hearing married, on conducting Moore, twenty- a a early Moore’s motion to denied purchased the district court a employee, year old bank nine 8, 1989. September News, dismiss publi- an adult copy of Adult Video compa- individuals and cation which lists date, the 12,1989, the trial September tapes. sexually explicit video that sell nies plea agreement filed a parties News, Video reading Adult While court, however, The district district court. had been an advertisement saw plea: did not (“A Company & A B Video placed by & going I’m not THE COURT: owned, sexually explicit B”), privately day of trial. 11(E)(1)(C) on the [sic]3 cooperating had video store which of dispose day appointed Today is the Orange officers of here, is the venire areWe the case. Department. Sheriff’s County, Florida it’s a jury. And here, ready to select and re- requested subsequently other- trying the case or matter of either catalog, which be, contained ceived A & B’s to- wise, your choice whatever foreign shipped or commerce in interstate specific used in the terms Section 2256 defines 1. by computer including or mailed any means Obscenity Enforcement Protection Child any depiction reproduces knowingly visual or 1988: Act of foreign com- or in interstate distribution age (1) any person under the means "minor” computer including by by any means merce eighteen years; of mails, if— through or (2) actual "sexually explicit conduct" means depiction (A) producing such visual of or simulated— engaging sexu- a minor involves use intercourse, genital- including (A) sexual conduct; ally explicit oral-anal, anal-genital, oral-genital, or genital, (B) con- depiction is of such such visual op- persons the same or whether between duct; sex; posite subsection provided in punished as shall be (B) bestiality; (b) of this section. masturbation; (C) 2252(a)(2). § 18 U.S.C. abuse; masochistic; (D) or or sadistic genitals (E) or exhibition of lascivious Criminal Procedure Federal Rule 3. any person; pubic area part, 11(e)(1)(C) pertinent provides, directing, producing, (3) "producing” means guilty or nolo entering "upon of a issuing, publishing, or adver- manufacturing, offense, attorney charged contendere tising; (4) following: any will do government person other than "organization” means a (C) specific agree sentence ... individual; Fed.R. appropriate disposition case." undeveloped (5) depiction" includes “visual 11(e)(1)(C). Crim.P. videotape ... film 18 U.S.C. 2256. release, During supervised provides that: Section mental participate in a instructed Of- approved the Probation program health (a) Any person who ... supervised pay cost receives, any for the and to fice (2) knowingly or distributes $1,100 per year. transported release at the rate depiction that has been visual Orange County undercover Because the the under- placed two-line advertisement operation, noti- operation a local Carl “Looking for bizarre videos cover officers: (“In- Perry LePere Inspector material, fied Postal young want taboo photos, Nashville, LePere”) Tennessee spector Will trade family or incest videos. girls, LePere Inspector his contacts with Moore. Bryant, P.O. Box like material. Write Inspection Ser- that the Postal advised Carl 617379,Orlando, or call 407- Florida Investiga- Bureau of vice and the Federal at 44. 427-2407.” J.A. (“FBI”) joint federal established advertisement, Moore Responding to the investigate operation B, to A & card addressed an index mailed Inspector in Nashville. 20, 1988, said: July postmarked working that he would be LePere continued information on the “Bryant, please send me agent (“Agent Gar- FBI Brad Garrett with horse, [sic], dogs, children and following rett”) joint operation.6 in the card, mailing After fists.” J.A. at 45. telephoned September Moore that he had sent it to realized Moore he could Moore that Carl informed Carl. “Bryant” telephoned He wrong address. him, that he had a longer deal with but no “Carl,” remained unaware and but meet might in Nashville source July they officers.5 On were undercover 25, 1989, January Carl Moore’s needs. On 28, 1988, to the sent a second letter Moore him the number telephone gave Moore and Moore clarify his interests. officers to operation, which the federal purchasing interested in that he was wrote source.” as the “Nashville Carl described containing: to fifteen tapes pre-teen to ask for “Tom.”7 Carl instructed Moore making with men either year-old girls love fif- anally orally; pre-teen to vaginally, 26, 1989, telephoned Moore January On women; girls with adult lesbi- year-old teen re- explained he had been Tom and scenes; pornographic various other and purchase by ferred Carl and wanted margin of Moore wrote in the depictions. Tom asked what some videos. When destroy” and added his letter “Please particular, Moore looking Moore was for photos and action of seven- “have still nude Ah, teen, pre- “Ah, replied young women. male, ...” year and adult Polaroid old teen that he type stuff.” Moore stated teen at 46. J.A. years-old looking fifteen below requested action shots age group. He also months, six Moore con- During the next girls. Moore then young with women listed telephone number to call tinued action develop 35 mm color asked Tom to speak Bryant in the advertisement girls year-old of twelve and thirteen shots 20, 1988, August Moore On or Carl. “project photographed in the he had Bryant which con- package to a mailed areas” of town. undeveloped film. Carl a roll of tained depict- that it letter, film and found developed the Tom mailed January In a engaged in (1) descrip- female year-old a a seventeen to Moore: ed three documents YL-62; (2) an adult male. a explicit acts with sexual of the film known YL-107; sexually photocopies known as description Carl then made of the film film negatives (3) describing preprinted sent form explicit photographs and a bes- to Moore. Even YL-62 was photographs processing back costs. Film a woman photo- tiality tape horse though Moore told Carl female, $65; YL-107 was a at and Film depicted priced Carl graphs a minor pornogra- of child containing female’s six scenarios independent no evidence letter, In his Tom priced phy $275. insufficient and determined age there receiving Moore’s or- upon explained that prosecute. name used was the undercover 6. "Jason” 5."Bryant" “Carl” the undercover were Schwenk, Agent Garrett. by Bryant and Carl used Rose names Orange deputy employed both sheriffs by In- name used 7. "Tom” was Department. County, Florida Sheriff’s spector LePere. articulating] ing guilty plea without send the he would payment, form der ” rejecting plea.’ mail. sound reason by registered videos Defendant-Appellant at Brief on Behalf of 15, 1989, mailed a February On (6th 1990) States v. Cir. United (the bestiaity tape) Film YL-62 copy of (No. 89-6581) (quoting personal form and description, an order (7th Cir.1982)). Delegal, Film YL-62 to Tom. for $65 check counters that Government 10, 1989, On March to Moore. then mailed deciding court “has discretion broad the Film “Young Services” mailed un guilty plea and is whether to (the tape) order YL-107 negotiated plea duty accept a der no Moore,” as sheet, signed “Greg dated and any reasons agreement and need not state totaling $275.9 payment as his well Brief on Behalf of plea.” 15, 1989, YL-107 was Film March Plaintiff-Appellee at for con- Inspector LePere prepared Cir.1990) (No. 89-6581) (citing Inspector delivery Moore. trolled Moore, Express tape in an packaged LePere Cir.1981)). envelope to envelope; addressed Mail stating that in The is correct Government postage; drove Moore; proper the affixed have broad discretion the district courts delivered and hand Corryton, Tennessee accept plea deciding whether or not postmaster. Corryton envelope to the the York, v. New agreement. See Santobello placed a postmaster then Corryton The 495, 498, 257, 262, 30 92 S.Ct. 404 U.S. Box that Post Office in Moore’s note a. (1971) (citing Lynch v. Over 427 L.Ed.2d large too mail arrived piece of 719, 1063, holser, 82 S.Ct. 369 U.S. picked up After Moore in the to fit box. (1962)). See also Unit 1072, L.Ed.2d 211 8 Office, he was the Post package from Yates, v. F.2d 829-30 ed States 698 Following LePere. by Inspector arrested however, Cir.1983). agree, (6th We do not arrest, search consented to his court with the Government residence, a substantial revealed rejecting a any reasons not state for “need magazines pornographic library of adult Plaintiff-Appel- Brief Behalf of plea.” on pornography. no child tapes, but and video adopted Although that rule 34. lee at v. Eighth by the Circuit II. Cir.1981) (8th Moore, 1196 637 F.2d sufficiency reviewing the When is under no “district court (stating that a conviction, supporting a criminal evidence agree negotiated plea duty to consider is evidence only if must “we reverse require not Rule 11 does ment that] [and not find mind could that a reasonable such guilty plea to either district courts doubt.” United beyond a reasonable guilt rejecting reasons for its or delineate [sic] Cir.1984), (6th Stull, v. States omitted), (citations it”) believe 1062, 105 S.Ct. denied, 470 U.S. rt. ce view expressed the better Seventh Circuit evidence The 84 L.Ed.2d 838 Delegal, F.2d 47 v. States United favorable light in the most must be viewed Delegal, Cir.1982). court held: (7th In the Government. United right no has absolute a defendant While 1988). Johnson, Cir. accepted, a court guilty plea to have in deter- discretion exercise sound must A. plea. reject a not to mining whether or plead Thus, is entitled a defendant dis argues appeal, can artic- guilty unless by reject- its discretion abused trict court depicts 2252(a)(2), visually minors en- U.S.C. § named "Young Services” 8. Nashville-based, explicit as those sexually conduct gaged federal used investigate in U.S.C. operation to are terms defined was the stipulated Film YL-107 also YL-107, which is stipulated that Film he ordered. violation of 18 subject of his indictment can that the district district court so ulate a sound reason rejecting Moore’s plea. his reasons for articulate guilty plea.11 Unit- omitted). See also (citations Id. at 50 Ammidown, F.2d ed States (D.C.Cir.1973) a “reasoned exer- (requiring justify a de- in order to cise discretion by the agreed on from the course

parture argues that the conduct next defense”). prosecution and Cf. entrapment. constituted Government Miller, F.2d argues that response, the Government Cir.1983) “must (holding district courts predis shows that Moore was record, forth, prosecu- both set charged criminal engage in the posed to framing [charge] bar- tor’s reasons for exposure activity prior to his initial justification the court’s gain as he did and agree. agents. Government (citations omit- bargain”) rejecting the ted). entrapment considering a defendant’s defense, law “whether we must determine whether to

By leaving the decision criminal implanted a of sound enforcement officials reject the “exercise Santobello, discretion,” at law- design the mind of an otherwise judicial Supreme Court did abiding or whether Government citizen reject district courts to intend to allow merely provided opportunity to commit authority arbitrary basis. pleas on an already predisposed a crime one who implies the judicial discretion to exercise Pennell, to do so.” all responsibility to consider relevant (6th Cir.1984), a rationally construct decision. factors and 906, 83 L.Ed.2d 921 105 S.Ct. Severino, v. F.2d 800 See United (1985). uncontradicted When Cir.1986) may (2nd (holding that a court 46 entrapment predisposition, shows lack grounds plea “if has reasonable reject a [it] See law. a can be as matter determined plea acceptance of the believing that for Silva, F.2d 354- United States 846 contrary to the sound administra would denied, Cir.), 109 cert. (6th U.S. justice”), U.S. “How L.Ed.2d 354 S.Ct. (1987).10 93 L.Ed.2d 983 ever, is predisposition issue of once re recognized, Circuit has the Seventh As prove be must dispute, the Government a sound to articulate district courts quiring the defendant doubt that yond a reasonable plea a is the surest rejecting reason the offense.” predisposed to commit was judicial exercise of way to foster the sound Johnson, F.2d Delegal, F.2d at 50. See discretion. Cir.1988). to the this case Accordingly, we remand plea a deadline that there Sentencing imply a counsel denied date, was Guidelines The resolve plea before us does not accepting a the record judge’s exercise discretion least, will, no refer- prelim- dispute. docket sheet makes very require this The agreement at the date, although is a plea there cut-off ence to a evidence relevant to inary of all consideration discovery standing order. to a reference sentencing: is not intended to this issue Our remand or its decision The court shall defer rejecting plea it comes too because mean pur- reject any nonbinding recommendation proper may of discretion. not be exercise late 11(e)(1)(B), deci- the court’s to Rule suant simply unable problem we are here is that The agreement reject any plea sion to or judge’s brief com- from the trial to ascertain 11(e)(1)(C) 11(e)(1)(A) pursuant to Rules why plea was this precise reason ments the opportunity to consid- has until there plea judge cut-off date rejected. trial sets If a report presentence report, unless er time, prior plea to that is not offered and a required § 6A1.1 under may justified in well be trial 1.1(c) Sentencing (policy state- § 6B Guidelines hand, the Government plea. On the other ment). plea a defendant offer to makes first its accepts, the re- morning of trial and defendant sug- argument, Government counsel At oral plea circumstances under jection those plea gested was offered after a of discretion. an abuse constitute well by the district court. Defense deadline date set prior op negatives depicting Moore’s of mind his film

To determine state a minor exposure to his initial to Government engaged activity female in sexual with an following agents, we factors: consider adult male. reputation or character de- [T]he occasions, On several Moore told the un-

fendant, including any prior criminal he dercover officers that was afraid of record; suggestion whether being prosecuted receiving por- child initially by made activity criminal through being nography caught the mail or Government; the defendant whether in his home. Given activity prof- engaged in criminal knowledge charged crimi- it; evidenced re- whether the defendant activity illegal, nal the record does not offense, luctance overcome to commit support the claim that the undercover offi- only repeated Government induce- implanted pornog- cers for child desire persuasion; ments or and the nature of raphy in Moore’s mind. persuasion supplied the inducement or the Government. Contrary arguments, to Moore’s suggestion activity criminal initial McLernon, United States v. was not made undercover officers. (6th Cir.1984)(quoting fact, Moore initiated the contacts with Kaminski, Cir. Bryant by responding his advertisement 1983)). wanting tapes for those to trade bar, the shows In the record case featuring the “bizarre” “taboo”—two predisposed order and re- Moore was code words for child pornography prior initial ceive telephone made fifteen over (“the Tom Bryant, contact with Carl and officers; calls to the undercover sent them officers”). contacting Before post requesting card information on officers, Moore maintained the undercover fists;” “horses, dogs, children and and la porno- of hard core a substantial collection asking specifically ter mailed them letter graphic related materials involving “pre-teen for videos stuff ... activity involving minors. Moore criminal anywhere years-old.” below fifteen officers that confessed to record of Moore’s initiation contact “project he the areas” of town traveled to expressed the officers and his photograph engaged minors to solicit and pornography clearly desire for child rebuts sexually explicit in conduct. He later re- entrapment.12 officers devel- his claims of quested that the undercover appeal, package the the ceived, however, officers. The he re 12. On Moore contends that evidence it; considering proper postage had on was insufficient to convict him. sealed; argument, jury’s by his we must sustain the deter was and was received him addressed thus, office; supported by competent post mination it is in an statute, under the if official See States v. Til United substantial evidence. constituted mail. Cf. Cir.1972) 581, ton, (6th Cir.1983). Fisher, (af find 464 F.2d 582 firmi ng, § of record was sufficient to under 18 U.S.C. the conviction of theft, though support knowingly postal employee conviction for re for "mail" even Moore’s by ceiving tape depicting engaged package prepared minors the postal inspectors); item was a test video stolen Collins, conduct, sexually explicit in violation of 18 in First, 2252(a)(2). (2nd Cir.1965) (holding, to U.S.C. Moore’s decision F.2d under § correspondence telephone "[gjenuine temporarily mail initiate that § written U.S.C. by its usual course treated contact with the undercover officers rebuts his withdrawn from Second, agents purpose entrapment. stipu government Moore is also of for the same claims mail"), ordering receiving the illicit lated to tape. video none the less Thus, (1966). factors, jurors we these rational cor 16 L.Ed.2d 303 Given rectly every pornography that element of Moore's that the child received concluded conclude beyond meaning a reasonable of 18 offense was established Moore was mailed within Nelson, 2252(a)(2). doubt. See United § U.S.C. (6th Cir.1988) (affirming de that did not violate 18 Moore asserts he next under 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2) fendant's conviction requires U.S.C. because the statute § 2252(a)(2) grounds ac that defendant § "mailing" he did not receive illicit pornogra cepted delivery child correctly of tape through controlled the mail. Moore Duncan, phy); tape the video maintains that he received (same). (7th Cir.1990) through delivery orchestrated a controlled mail, Inspector tape by he plan claims to send further that even

Moore pornog ship it predisposed purchase to child to via but noti- was LePere offered UPS was, nevertheless, not predis raphy, package he fied Moore that the would sent posed Campbell, violate 18 U.S.C. 2252 because lines: from Fort § across state firmly opposed receiving such he was kept, Kentucky, where the material was transcripts through mail. material Corryton, J.A. at 341. Tennessee. Moore Inspector conversation Moore’s arrangement, readily agreed to this display unmistakable hesi LePere Moore’s have violation would constituted as sure reg tancy pornography via to receive child did mail. of Section 2252 as the use occasions, mail. several Moore istered facts, agree On these we requested that specifically contraband find, that a reasonable mind could court tape private parcel be sent via carrier doubt, beyond a reasonable the chances that he would order to reduce purchase only por- child predisposed not be convicted of a federal crime.13 through it nography, but also receive only por- If Section reached or of interstate commerce channels mail, through the would nography sent 2252(a). mail in violation of U.S.C. § argu- be more inclined to however, statute, encompasses ment. The C. receipt only not of child argues Moore also convic mail, through receipt also such but process clause tion is offensive to due transported or material “that has been fifth amendment. Moore contends foreign shipped in interstate or commerce means_” 2252(a). process he denied due law 18 U.S.C. any § employed expressed the undercover officers When discomfort with because possessed photographs also contends 18 U.S.C. officers he conduct, 2252(a)(2) single applicable engaged sexually explicit to his act of § minors receiving ordering violating Section 2252 prior Film YL-107. who reasonably enacted to reach both those "traffic” been have moti § partic- pornography and all those who child ipate, “expand” pornography por the child vated way, any chil- in the sexual abuse of Thus, library pornography.” of “his through pornography. au- dren Section 2252 provided by jury instruction persons prosecution those thorizes clearly was accurate and reflected law. "any depiction” knowingly of mi- receive visual sexually explicit 313-17, 328-30, 334, 545-51, See nors conduct. J.A. at See 2252(a)(2). "Any” has defined 18 U.S.C. A conversation between Garrett and some, sort, regardless quantity, as "One or February Moore on 1989 is illustrative of New Univer- ..." Webster’s11 Riverside number preliminary After Moore’s reluctance. conver- Thus, sity Dictionary, need sations, Garrett mentioned Moore’s “concerns only and received one video have ordered explained about the mail.” J.A. 328. Garrett depicting charged to be and child you way it "there could send to is a 2252(a)(2). violating U.S.C. convicted of responded you "I UPS if would rather.” Moore district erred court Moore continues really J.A. would.” at 329. Moore ex- rather following jury: by issuing the instruction to the plained: activity profit "The in the criminal defendant's why, you I’ll 'cause I know even the And tell merely financial but that he need not be against possession probably the stuff is of library expansion profiting of of from two, that, you you law. But number if send pornography.” The entitled know, that, get you, you probably of can out tailoring jury latitude instruc substantial tions; thus, in prosecute your in hometown it’d be hard to challenge Moore's must be reviewed everything can and like You sort of that.... only of See United States for abuse discretion. that. when the Fed— home cook out of But (6th Cir.1988), Busacca, get you, you people ahold of when mail - -, denied, U.S. S.Ct. guys. them can’t shake trial, (1989). argued that At L.Ed.2d 156 he J.A. at 329. Moore then stated that did not pornography was found in his home no child "just illegal to sent however, it was it court, know whether The district after the arrest. responded: "I'm found, J.A. Garrett UPS.” at 330. correctly record and based reviewed the to, you.... up going going to leave that I’m telephone conversations recorded Moore's [Wjhich (1) you with?” J.A. pos are more comfortable correspondence, did and that: responded: more library pornography; "I'm comforta- core at 330. sess of hard a home (2) J.A. at ble with UPS.” did disclose to undercover advertisement undercover officer’s tac- fundamentally law enforcement unfair Then, by tele videos. “bizarre” “taboo” outrageous Govern- amounted tics that correspondence, Moore phone and written Govern- response, conduct. ment of expressed to the undercover repeatedly of considering the nature argues ment “pre-teen stuff.” his desire conduct ficers crime, the Government's Moore's signed finally check $275 the due mailed to violate outrageous as not so the under Film YL-107 from and ordered amendment. the fifth of process clause officers, knowledge the full cover agree. (1) contained six scenar Film YI^107 that: a law enforce- long held It has (2) Film YL- pornography; child ios of out- might be “so conduct officer’s ment him. mailed to Under these 107 would be principles would process due rageous that conduct facts, the undercover officers’ government from invok- absolutely bar fundamentally un so could not be deemed convic- processes obtain ing judicial to violate Moore’s outrageous as fair and Russell, 411 U.S. tion.” United id.; process rights. See due L.Ed.2d 93 S.Ct. Cir.1984), Thoma, police determining (1973). In whether rt. ce due constitutional has undermined conduct L.Ed.2d 878 are con- factors protections, four process sidered: III. type government of

(1) need for the criminal relationship in conduct are operations Government crimi- of a (2) preexistence activity; prevent deter those severely needed to (3) the di- the level enterprise; nal sell, purchase or traffic produce, who criminal enter- or control rection pornographers Child (4) impact government; prise have dev serious crimes can commit create activity to government and, society most im upon astating effects activity. the criminal commission sexually are upon children portantly, Johnson, Davis, L. See, E. Bass & e.g., abused. omitted). Cir.1988) (citations Women A Guide to Heal: Courage (1988); Abuse Sexual Child and Survivors below the record reviewed We have Men Recov Lew, Longer: No M. Victims no violation there was find that Child Sexual & Other ering Incest those who Because rights. process due from pas recommending the (1988). In Abuse pornogra- in child sell, traffic purchase Act Abuse Child Sexual sage of the secret, necessary for it was phy operate on the Judi House Committee ad- purchase officers all of the crimes “Of ciary explained: News detect Video Adult vertisement is more perhaps none society, to our known Section violations of investigate exploitation of sexual revolting than the (holding postal inspec- at 304 id. See purpose for the children, particularly of an advertisement placement tor’s H.Rep. No. pornography.” producing to detect justified Magazine Screw Sess., reprinted 2d 99-910, 2252). Cong., 99th Section investigate violations Cong. & Admin.News 1986 U.S.Code indicates that the record review Our an ex maintains officers, The Government contacting the undercover to prior preventing interest important tremely pornography core a hard maintained and child pornography of child the spread of minors including photographs library, 18 U.S.C. abuse. Under sexual sexually explicit conduct. means provided rational Congress has indicating Moreover, is no evidence there Govern interest. this Government any achieve exercised officers as the operations, such activities, ment undercover criminal over Moore’s control led operation which “Young Services” the risk increased the officers certainly required arrest, are through Moore’s receiving child por- of child to be free society is ever our responded to originally mails. Moore crime of heinous nography TRAUTVETTER, Patsy L. abuse. sexual Plaintiff-Appellant, the dis- hereby AFFIRM Accordingly, we judgment court’s December trict this and REMAND orders

and commitment Individually as QUICK, John artic- judge can that the district so case Elementary Hymera Principal his reasons ulate Corporation; School; School Northeast plea. guilty Individually Walters, as D. Richard Northeast School of the

Superintendent Tinchner, BROWN, R. Indi Senior Circuit Corporation; Donald BAILEY Superintend only to II-A vidually dissenting Assistant Judge, as Corpora School of the Northeast opinion. ent tion; of Northeast Trustees Board of ... the “remand as to I dissent Turner, Corporation; and Howard can judge so that district Case, Hughes, Ronald Ronald James rejecting Moore’s his reasons articulate Reynolds, Larry All Individu Frye, and plea.” guilty capacities Members as ally their that a district accept the if we view Even North Trustees Board agree- plea refusing to judge, District, Defendants-Appel east School 11(e)(1)(C)must Rule under tendered ment lees. reasons,” to me appears it “articulate 88-3232. No. in this As set out so. judge did that the judge articulates opinion, court’s Appeals, Court with an he refuses Circuit. Seventh parties disposition because agreed 6, 1989. Argued June trial, day delayed until the time set present and jurors prospective 12, 1990. Decided Oct. case, guilty to tender try the aside 1, 1990. Nov. Amended As be con- sentence agreed plea with by the court. sidered really opinion majority

It reason articulated that the

means remand is

not sufficient since, However, reason. another articulate opinion, the test majority stated

as is whether applied here to be discretion, I believe abused his determination supports articulated

reason discretion. he did abuse therefore, the order

I, from dissent

remand.

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Greg Moore

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Nov 27, 1990

Citation: 916 F.2d 1131

Docket Number: 89-6581

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.