US v. John Haye
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00124-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [14-4658]
Pg: 1 of 6
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
JOHN D. HAYES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:13-cr-00124-1)
April 30, 2015
May 22, 2015
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian J. Kornbrath, Acting Federal Public Defender, David R.
Bungard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R.
Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Jennifer Rada Herrald,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 6
Following a bench trial, John D. Hayes was convicted of
attempted distribution and possession of child pornography, in
district court sentenced Hayes to 180 months in prison.
Hayes contends that the district court erred in rejecting
his guilty plea to possession of child pornography.
court may enter judgment on a plea of guilty, it must find a
sufficient factual basis to support the plea.”
United States v.
Mitchell, 104 F.3d 649, 652 (4th Cir. 1997); see Fed. R. Crim.
The factual basis requirement “ensures that the
court make clear exactly what a defendant admits to, and whether
United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120
determining whether a factual basis exists,” United States v.
Morrow, 914 F.2d 608, 611 (4th Cir. 1990), and the court may
conduct that gave rise to the charge,” Santobello v. New York,
404 U.S. 257, 261 (1971).
To prove possession of child pornography, the Government
must show that the defendant knowingly possessed images of child
Pg: 3 of 6
18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5).
An act is knowing if it
mistake or accident or other innocent reason.”
United States v.
Shrader, 675 F.3d 300, 309 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
“A possessor of child pornography videos need
not know that it is such at the time of download, so long as he
discovers that it is child pornography after the download and
decides to keep it anyway.”
United States v. Carani, 492 F.3d
867, 875 (7th Cir. 2007).
In this case, the court exercised its discretion to reject
the guilty plea because it concluded that Hayes refused to admit
to the core conduct of the offense, thus raising questions about
the factual basis for the plea.
In light of Hayes’ testimony at
the plea hearing and the “deference [that we must accord] to the
trial court’s decision as to how best to conduct the mandated
cannot conclude that the court erred in this respect.
Hayes next asserts a Confrontation Clause challenge to the
generated automatically by a computer program, not by a person.
constitutes a testimonial statement—that is, a statement made
with a primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute
for trial testimony.”
Pg: 4 of 6
United States v. Reed, 780 F.3d 260, 269
generated by a machine, where the only source of the statement
is the machine printout and not a person, is not subject to the
United States v. Washington, 498 F.3d
225, 229-30 (4th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. Lamons,
We conclude that the admission of the
challenged reports did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
We review the sufficiency of the evidence
underlying a criminal conviction “by determining whether there
is substantial evidence in the record, when viewed in the light
most favorable to the government, to support the conviction.”
sufficiency of the evidence, we do not review the credibility of
the witnesses, and we assume that the factfinder resolved all
United States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir. 2007).
will not overturn a verdict if “any rational trier of fact could
Pg: 5 of 6
United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 387
(4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted).
The evidence established that Hayes possessed substantial
program that allowed others to access child pornography files
stored in his shared folder.
We conclude that the evidence was
See United States v. Collins, 642 F.3d 654, 656-
57 (8th Cir. 2011) (finding sufficient evidence of attempted
installed, and used file-sharing program and possessed knowledge
of computers); see also United States v. Dunn, 777 F.3d 1171,
pornography files into shared folder accessible to other users
transfer of possession to another user).
Finally, Hayes claims that his sentence of 15 years was
existence of a prior conviction. ∗
As Hayes acknowledges, his
claim is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent as well as our
Hayes was previously convicted in
assault in the second degree, involving
him to a mandatory minimum sentence of
and a maximum possible sentence of 40
§ 2252A(b)(1) (2012).
West Virginia of sexual
a minor, which subjects
15 years’ imprisonment
See 18 U.S.C.
own and is thus unavailing.
Pg: 6 of 6
See Almendarez-Torres v. United
States, 523 U.S. 224, 233-36, 243-44 (1998); United States v.
continued validity of Almendarez-Torres following United States
v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?