United States v. Roybal, No. 12-30350 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to one count of receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(2). On appeal, defendant argued that his act of "showing" child pornography did not qualify as "distribution" under the sentencing guidelines. The court declined to address this argument, concluding that defendant's act of permitting the child victim to print copies of child pornography stored on his computer independently qualified as "distribution." The court also concluded that penile plethysmograph testing was not warranted given the lack of requisite findings by the district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed a sentence in a case in which the district court, based on its holding that the defendant’s act of showing child pornography to an eleven-year-old victim qualified as “distribution,” applied an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(D) and declined to apply a reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(1). Without deciding whether an act of “showing” child pornography to a third party can itself constitute “distribution,” the panel held that the defendant’s act of permitting the child victim to print copies of child pornography stored on the defendant’s computer qualified as “distribution.” The panel also held that given the lack of requisite findings by the district court, penile plethysmograph testing as part of a supervised-release condition requiring participation in a sex-offender treatment program is not warranted.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.