United States v. Harold Franklin Walters

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 31, 2006
No. 05-15739 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00145-CR-CG
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HAROLD FRANKLIN WALTERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
_________________________
(May 31, 2006)
Before DUBINA, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Harold Franklin Walters appeals his conviction for possession of child
pornography that was transported in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2252A(a)(5)(B). On appeal, Walters argues that there was no evidence to
suggest that his receipt of child pornography over the internet had a connection to,
or an impact upon, interstate commerce, and thus, charging him under
§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) was plain error. He contends that the intrastate possession of
child pornography for non-commercial purposes does not have an impact on
interstate commerce, and the application of § 2252A in the instant case was
unconstitutional. We find no merit to Walters’ argument.
We have held that “the internet is an instrumentality of interstate commerce .
. . [and] Congress clearly has the power to regulate the internet, as it does other
instrumentalities and channels of interstate commerce, and to prohibit its use for
harmful or immoral purposes regardless of whether those purposes would have a
primarily intrastate impact.” United States v. Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306, 1311
(11th Cir. 2004). More recently, we concluded that “it is within Congress’s
authority to regulate all intrastate possession of child pornography, not just that
which has traveled in interstate commerce or has been produced using materials
that have traveled in interstate commerce.” United States v. Maxwell, No. 03-
14326, manuscript op. at 18 (11th Cir. Apr. 20, 2006).
Upon review of the record, we discern no reversible error. At trial, the
2
government proved, through witness testimony and forensic analysis, that Walters
downloaded pornographic images using the internet, which is an instrument of
interstate commerce. As such, there was no constitutional error in the indictment,
and we affirm Walters’s conviction.
AFFIRMED.
3