US v. Robert Springstead

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:11-cr-00061-MSD-FBS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999086407].. [12-4084]

Appeal: 12-4084

Doc: 50

Filed: 04/15/2013

Pg: 1 of 8

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4084

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT SPRINGSTEAD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:11-cr-00061-MSD-FBS-1)

Submitted:

November 30, 2012

Decided:

April 15, 2013

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lawrence H. Woodward, Jr., SHUTTLEWORTH, RULOFF, SWAIN, HADDAD &
MORECOCK, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant.
Neil
H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Benjamin L. Hatch,
Elizabeth M. Yusi, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4084

Doc: 50

Filed: 04/15/2013

Pg: 2 of 8

PER CURIAM:
After a two-day bench trial, Robert Springstead was
convicted of eleven counts of distribution of child pornography,
three

counts

possession

of

of

receipt

child

of

child

pornography,

pornography,
two

counts

one
of

count

of

receipt

of

obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children,
and one count of possession of obscene visual representations of
the sexual abuse of children.
On

appeal,

Springstead

erroneously

admitted

He received a 204-month sentence.

contends

expert

that

the

district

court

testimony

and

evidence

of

a

fictional story Springstead wrote when he was fourteen years
old.

Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
On appeal, Springstead first argues that the district

court erred in admitting Special Agent Paul Wolpert’s testimony
regarding

his

Specifically,

forensic

examination

Springstead

posits

of

Springstead’s

that

Wolpert

computer.

lacked

the

requisite knowledge and training to explain how the Forensic
Tool Kit (“FTK”) software used in this case was designed and
functioned and that the Government failed to offer testimony
regarding

the

reliability,

peer

review,

error

rate,

and

standards of the industry for the software as required by Fed.
R. Evid. 702.
This court reviews the district court’s decision to
admit expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702 for abuse of
2

Appeal: 12-4084

Doc: 50

Filed: 04/15/2013

Pg: 3 of 8

United States v. Wilson, 484 F.3d 267, 273 (4th

discretion.

Cir. 2007) (citing Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S.
137, 152 (1999)).

Pursuant to Rule 702,

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge,
skill, experience, training, or education may testify
in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the
expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand
the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the
testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c)
the testimony is the product of reliable principles
and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied
the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Fed.

R.

Evid.

702.

The

district

court

must

be

granted

“considerable leeway in deciding in a particular case how to go
about

determining

reliable.”

whether

particular

Wilson, 484 F.3d at 273.

expert

testimony

is

If an expert seeks to be

qualified on the basis of experience, the district court must
require

that

he

“explain

how

his

experience

leads

to

the

conclusion reached, why his experience is a sufficient basis for
the opinion, and how his experience is reliably applied to the
Id.

at

The

facts.”

274

(internal

district

quotation

marks

and

citation

omitted).

regarding

Wolpert’s

court

heard

education,

personal involvement in this case.

considerable

experience,

evidence

expertise,

and

The district court qualified

Wolpert as an expert in internet and computer forensics, finding
that

Wolpert

had

“the

requisite

3

knowledge

and

training,

Appeal: 12-4084

Doc: 50

Filed: 04/15/2013

Pg: 4 of 8

experience, and because of the certification process, there’s
been a method . . . whereby he’s been tested on his familiarity
and ability to operate the [FTK] that he uses in his computer
forensic investigations.”
Having

reviewed

the

record

with

the

appropriate

standards in mind, we conclude the district court’s decision to
qualify Wolpert as an expert did not constitute an abuse of
discretion.

See United States v. Johnson, 617 F.3d 286, 293

(4th Cir. 2010) (noting the process of forensic data extraction
requires “some specialized knowledge or skill or education that
is

not

in

the

possession

of

the

jurors”)

(quoting

Certain

Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Sinkovich, 232 F.3d 200, 203
(4th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted)); see also United
States v. Ganier, 468 F.3d 920, 926 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding
that

testimony

knowledge

and

that

would

familiarity

“require
with

[the

computers

witness]
and

the

to

apply

particular

forensic software well beyond that of the average layperson”
fell within the scope of Rule 702).

To the extent Springstead

challenges the reliability of Wolpert’s testimony on the ground
that the district court inadequately considered factors such as
testing,

peer

review,

error

rates,

and

acceptability

in

the

relevant scientific community, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms.,
Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593-94 (1993), the test of reliability is
“flexible,”

and

Daubert’s

list
4

of

specific

factors

neither

Appeal: 12-4084

Doc: 50

Filed: 04/15/2013

Pg: 5 of 8

necessarily nor exclusively applies to all experts or in every
case.

Kumho Tire Co., 526 U.S. at 141.
Next, Springstead argues the district court erred in

admitting a two-page fictional story Springstead wrote at the
age of fourteen about the sexual encounters of a six-year-old
girl.

Under Rule 404(b), “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or

other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in
order

to

show”

that

his

action

conformed to that character.

on

a

particular

occasion

Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1).

Such

evidence “may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving
motive,

opportunity,

intent,

preparation,

plan,

knowledge,

identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”
Evid.

404(b)(2).

Further,

“[t]o

be

admissible

Fed. R.

under

Rule

404(b), evidence must be (1) relevant to an issue other than
United States v.

character; (2) necessary; and (3) reliable.”

Siegel, 536 F.3d 306, 317 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks

omitted).

“Rule

404(b)

is

.

.

.

an

inclusive

rule,

admitting all evidence of other crimes or acts except that which
tends to prove only criminal disposition.”

United States v.

Young, 248 F.3d 260, 271-72 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
“Evidence sought to be admitted under Rule 404(b) must
also satisfy [Fed. R. Evid.] 403 . . . ,”
319,

such

that

its

probative
5

value

is

Siegel, 536 F.3d at
not

substantially

Appeal: 12-4084

Doc: 50

Filed: 04/15/2013

Pg: 6 of 8

outweighed by its prejudicial value.
132 F.3d 991, 995 (4th Cir. 1997).
defendant’s

case

is

evidence”

because

invariably

will

not

a

Under Rule 403, “damage to a

basis

“[e]vidence

for

that

prejudicial

is

highly

probative

States v. Grimmond, 137 F.3d 823, 833 (4th Cir. 1998).

Rule 403

of

evidence

the

probative

United

exclusion

to

excluding

defense.”

requires

be

United States v. Queen,

only

where

the

trial

judge

perceives “a genuine risk that the emotions of the jury will be
excited to irrational behavior” disproportionate to the value of
the proffered evidence.

United States v. Mohr, 318 F.3d 613,

618 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Assuming,

without

deciding,

that

the

district

court

erred in admitting the letter authored by Springstead at the age
of

fourteen,

we

nevertheless

conclude

that

harmless and does not warrant reversal.

any

error

was

See Fed. R. Crim. P.

52(a) (“Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does
not

affect

States

v.

(erroneous

substantial
Lighty,
admission

616
of

rights

must

F.3d

321,

prior

bad

be

disregarded.”);

355–56
acts

404(b) subject to harmless-error analysis).

(4th

evidence

United

Cir.
under

2010)
Rule

Under the harmless-

error standard, we will not reverse if we can “say, with fair
assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping
the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not
substantially swayed by the error.”
6

Kotteakos v. United States,

Appeal: 12-4084

Doc: 50

Filed: 04/15/2013

Pg: 7 of 8

328 U.S. 750, 765 (1946); United States v. Brooks, 111 F.3d 365,
371 (4th Cir. 1997).
improperly

admitted

“This inquiry is not whether, absent the
evidence,

sufficient

evidence

existed

to

convict. . . . Rather, the inquiry is whether we can say that we
believe it highly probable that the error did not affect the
Lighty,

judgment.”

616

F.3d

at

356

(citation

and

internal

quotation marks omitted).
As noted by Springstead on appeal, the thrust of his
defense

at

qualified

trial
expert

was
to

that

the

explain

Government

when

and

did

how

not

child

produce

a

pornographic

images were placed on the hard drive, particularly in light of
Springstead’s denial of any intentional possession, receipt, or
distribution of child pornography.

Springstead further argued

that the Government could not produce a witness to testify that
Springstead ever expressed any interest in child pornography or
anyone

to

testify

that

he

or

she

saw

it

on

computer or otherwise in Springstead’s possession.

Springstead’s
In light of

this failure, Springstead argues, the admission of the letter
was

not

only

erroneous,

but

prejudicial,

requiring

reversal.

Contrary to Springstead’s assertions, the Government introduced
significant evidence implicating him in the possession, receipt,
and distribution of child pornography.

Therefore, even if the

district court erred in admitting the letter, which we assume
without deciding, we conclude that any error was harmless.
7

Appeal: 12-4084

Doc: 50

Filed: 04/15/2013

Last,

Springstead

Pg: 8 of 8

raises

a

cursory

claim

that

the

evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to convict him.
This

argument

Wolpert’s

is

expert

Springstead’s

premised
testimony

arguments

as

solely
and

on

the

to

the

inadmissibility

letter.

the

Having

admission

of

of

rejected
Wolpert’s

testimony and concluding sufficient evidence exists to support
the convictions, we determine that this claim is without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

Court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

8