U.S. v. Ryan

Record contained sufficient evidence to support defendant’s guilty verdict on charges of possessing, receiving and distributing child pornography. While defendant claimed that statutory definition of “distribute” did not apply to facts of instant case, where programs on defendant’s computer downloaded child pornography to shared folder from which other users could download files, jury could properly have found that defendant was nevertheless aware that others were actually accessing child pornography on his computer where defendant had sophisticated understanding of programs on his computer. Moreover, individual who passively allows others to download files stored on his computer has “distributed” said files within meaning of 18 USC section 2242. Dist. Ct. also did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to substitute counsel that was made five days before start of trial, where Dist. Ct. asked defendant for reasons for said motion, and where Dist. Ct. could properly reject defendant’s claim that there was breakdown in communications between him and current counsel, who was actually communicating with defendant and who had taken steps to adequately defend defendant. Also, Dist. Ct. did not commit reversible err in entering forfeiture order even though Dist. Ct. had failed to question either party about whether it or he wanted jury to resolve forfeiture issue, since defendant did not cite to said error at trial, and since no reasonable jury could find there was no sufficient nexus between defendant’s computer and charged offense.