U.S. v. Faulds

Record contained sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction on charges of distribution of child pornography, as well as possession of child pornography, even though defendant argued that convictions on both charges violated Double Jeopardy Clause since possession charge was lesser-included offence of distribution charge. No Double Jeopardy violation occurred since both convictions did not rest on same set of operative facts since distribution charge occurred when defendant sent via his computer images of child pornography, and possession charge occurred one month later when police discovered said images on defendant's computer. Fact that defendant had continued to possess same images after he distributed copies of said images did not require different result.