US v. Richard Blank, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00448-WDQ-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999919770].. [15-4769]

Appeal: 15-4769

Doc: 44

Filed: 08/30/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4769

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RICHARD ALAN BLANK, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:14-cr-00448-WDQ-1)

Submitted:

August 19, 2016

Decided:

August 30, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Joanna Silver, OFFICE OF
THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Judson T. Mihok,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4769

Doc: 44

Filed: 08/30/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Richard Alan Blank, Jr., was convicted of two counts of
producing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) (2012) (Counts
One and Two), and one count of possession of child pornography,
18

U.S.C.

§ 2252A(a)(5)(B)

sentenced

to

convictions

360

on

months

Counts

(2012)

in

One

(Count

prison.

and

Two,

insufficient evidence to convict him.

Three).

Blank

now

claiming

He

was

appeals

his

that

there

was

We affirm.

We will sustain a jury’s verdict “if there is substantial
evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to
support it.”

Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942);

United States v. Bran, 776 F.3d 276, 279 (4th Cir. 2015), cert.
denied, 136 S. Ct. 722 (2016).
evidence

which

a

reasonable

“Substantial evidence is that

finder

of

fact

could

accept

as

adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
719

F.3d

305,

omitted).
is

treated

311

(4th

Cir.

United States v. Al Sabahi,

2012)

(internal

quotation

marks

In conducting this analysis, “circumstantial evidence
no

differently

than

direct

evidence,

and

may

be

sufficient to support a guilty verdict even though it does not
exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.”
United States v. Jackson, 863 F.2d 1168, 1173 (4th Cir. 1989).
We do not review the credibility of the witnesses, and we assume
that the jury resolved all contradictions in testimony in favor
2

Appeal: 15-4769

Doc: 44

Filed: 08/30/2016

Pg: 3 of 5

of the Government.

United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364

(4th

Reversal

Cir.

1998).

insufficient

evidence

“is

of

a

conviction

confined

prosecution’s failure is clear.”

to

on

cases

grounds
where

of
the

Burks v. United States, 437

U.S. 1, 17 (1978).
The relevant statute provides:
Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces,
entices or coerces any minor to engage in . . . any
sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing
any visual depiction of such conduct . . . shall be
punished as provided under subsection (e) . . . if
that visual depiction was produced or transmitted
using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or
transported in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce by any means. . . .
18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).
The

statute

“contains

a

specific

intent

element:

the

government [is] required to prove that production of a visual
depiction was a purpose of engaging in the sexually explicit
conduct.”

United States v. Palomino-Coronado, 805 F.3d 127, 130

(4th Cir. 2015).

In Palomino-Coronado, we stated:

a defendant must engage in the sexual activity with
the specific intent to produce a visual depiction; it
is not sufficient simply to prove that the defendant
purposefully took a picture. Nonetheless, courts do
not require that a defendant be single-minded in his
purpose to support a conviction under § 2251(a).
Id. at 131.
Among the factors indicative of the requisite purpose are:
the defendant’s concealing from the victim the fact that he was

3

Appeal: 15-4769

Doc: 44

Filed: 08/30/2016

photographing

or

Pg: 4 of 5

videotaping

her;

the

defendant’s

giving

instructions concerning positions he wanted the victim to assume
and

things

he

wanted

her

to

say

while

he

recorded

or

photographed their activities; whether there were a number of
sexually explicit recordings or photographs; and whether there
was “purposeful conduct” surrounding the photographic or video
equipment used.
We

Id. at 131-32.

reject

Blank’s

claim

that

there

was

insufficient

evidence of the requisite intent and conclude that “a purpose”
of Blank’s sexual activity with the minor was to produce child
pornography.

Over a 12-13 minute period during an hour-long

sexual encounter, Blank instructed the victim how he wanted her
to pose for photographs.

He took four photos of her buttocks

and anus during this time.
victim

immediately

after

Blank showed the photos to the

taking

them

and

again

late

afternoon, referring to her as “little miss porn star.”

that
Over

the next 24-48 hours, both the victim and her mother saw Blank
surreptitiously

looking

at

his

phone

during

suggesting that he was viewing the photographs.

this

time,

He deleted the

images before he handed the phone to his wife.
Further,

Blank’s

activity

leading

up

to

this

encounter

suggests that a purpose of the encounter was to produce child
pornography.

Two days before he took the photographs, Blank

asked the victim several times to allow him to take photographs
4

Appeal: 15-4769

Doc: 44

Filed: 08/30/2016

Pg: 5 of 5

of them while they engaged in anal intercourse.

The victim

refused each time.
We hold that the evidence was sufficient to convict Blank,
and we affirm.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials
before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

5