United States v. Timothy McKeithan , 490 F. App'x 680 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 11-51266     Document: 00512037768         Page: 1     Date Filed: 10/30/2012
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    October 30, 2012
    No. 11-51266
    Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    TIMOTHY MCKEITHAN,
    Defendant - Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 7:11-CR-258-1
    Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Timothy McKeithan pleaded guilty to knowing possession of one or more
    computer files containing visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually
    explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4), and was sentenced to a
    within-Guidelines       statutory     maximum        120-month       imprisonment-term.
    McKeithan contends the district court erred in finding his guilty plea was
    supported by an adequate factual basis for the interstate-commerce element of
    the offense.
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 11-51266    Document: 00512037768      Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/30/2012
    No. 11-51266
    This question is raised for the first time on appeal; thus, review is only for
    plain error. E.g., United States v. Garcia-Paulin, 
    627 F.3d 127
    , 131 (5th Cir.
    2010). For reversible plain error, McKeithan must show a clear or obvious error
    that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 
    556 U.S. 129
    , 135
    (2009). He fails to do so.
    In accepting a guilty plea, the district court must ensure “the factual
    conduct admitted by the defendant is sufficient as a matter of law to establish
    a violation of the statute to which he entered his plea”. United States v. Trejo,
    
    610 F.3d 308
    , 313 (5th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original); see FED . R. CRIM. P.
    11(b)(3). The factual basis must be “sufficiently specific to enable the district
    court to compare the conduct admitted by the defendant with the elements of the
    offense charged”. Trejo, 610 F.3d at 313. In reviewing the factual sufficiency of
    the guilty plea under plain-error review, our court may look beyond the facts
    admitted during the plea colloquy “and scan the entire record for facts
    supporting his conviction”. Id. “This includes the facts gleaned from the plea
    agreement and plea colloquy, [and] the factual findings relied upon in the
    presentence report . . . , as well as fairly drawn inferences from the evidence
    presented both post-plea and at the sentencing hearing. The indictment, if
    specific, is also fair game.” Id. at 317 (internal quotation marks and citations
    omitted).
    Our court has held “‘[t]ransmission of photographs by means of the
    Internet is tantamount to moving photographs across state lines and thus
    constitutes transportation in interstate commerce’”. United States v. Runyan,
    
    290 F.3d 223
    , 239 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Carroll, 
    105 F.3d 740
    ,
    742 (1st Cir. 1997)). Although a specific connection between the Internet and
    the images is necessary to satisfy the interstate-commerce requirement,
    circumstantial evidence of such a connection will suffice. Id. at 242.
    Review of the record confirms ample factual support for the district court’s
    finding McKeithan possessed images depicting minors engaged in sexually
    2
    Case: 11-51266   Document: 00512037768     Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/30/2012
    No. 11-51266
    explicit conduct that were transported in interstate commerce through use of the
    Internet. E.g., Trejo, 610 F.3d at 317.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-51266

Citation Numbers: 490 F. App'x 680

Judges: Davis, Barksdale, Elrod

Filed Date: 10/30/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024