UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4490
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT FENN,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00510-JCC-1)
Submitted: December 20, 2013 Decided: February 4, 2014
Before KING, GREGORY, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James W. Hundley, BRIGLIA HUNDLEY NUTTALL & LOPEZ, P.C., Vienna,
Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States
Attorney, Alicia J. Yass, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Lindsay A. Kelly, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
After a two-day jury trial, Robert Fenn (“Appellant”)
was convicted of one count each of receipt of child pornography
and possession of child pornography and was sentenced to 120
months imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. He
appeals, raising three contentions: (1) the district court
should have granted his motion to suppress certain statements
because they were given during an improper custodial
interrogation, in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
(1966); (2) during trial, the district court erroneously
admitted evidence of legal Hentai (sexual cartoon) images that
were found on Appellant’s computer, in violation of Federal
Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b); and (3) the evidence presented
at trial was insufficient to convict Appellant. Finding no
error, we affirm.
I.
We have reviewed the district court’s order denying
Appellant’s motion to suppress, and we find no reversible error.
Thus, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in
its memorandum opinion of January 22, 2013. See United States
v. Fenn, No. 1:12-cr-00510-JCC-1, ECF No. 17 (E.D. Va., filed
Jan. 22, 2013).
2
II.
As to whether the district court improperly admitted
Hentai images stored on Appellant’s computer, we likewise
affirm. Appellant argues these images were improperly admitted
under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403. We review for
abuse of discretion and note, “[d]istrict courts generally enjoy
broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence.”
United States v. Leeson, 453 F.3d 631, 636 (4th Cir. 2006);
United States v. Woods, 710 F.3d 195, 200 (4th Cir. 2013).
Rule 404(b) provides, “Evidence of a crime, wrong, or
other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in
order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in
accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1).
However, such evidence “may be admissible for another purpose,
such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”
Id. 404(b)(2).
Having reviewed the transcript, it is clear the images
were properly admitted as evidence for purposes other than
showing Appellant’s general character. They were admitted in
accordance with this court’s decision in United States v. Queen,
132 F.3d 991, 997 (4th Cir. 1997) (explaining that evidence of
prior acts must be (1) relevant and not offered to establish
general character, (2) probative of an essential claim or
3
element of the offense, (3) reliable, and (4) the probative
value must not be substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice).
Further, the ruling was not in contravention of Rule 403. See
United States v. Benkahla, 530 F.3d 300, 310 (4th Cir. 2008).
The court also gave limiting instructions as to the purpose of
the images, explaining that they were legal, and they did not
show “that at another time the defendant performed a similar act
or committed a similar offense, including the offense charged in
the indictment.” J.A. 303. * We thus find no merit in
Appellant’s argument on this point.
III.
Appellant’s final contention on appeal is that the
evidence at trial was insufficient to support the guilty verdict
against him; rather, he argues that there was substantial
evidence that Appellant’s brother and father, both of whom lived
with Appellant, received and possessed the pornography at issue.
In entertaining such an argument, we “construe the evidence in
the light most favorable to the government, assuming its
credibility, and drawing all favorable inferences from it, and
will sustain the jury’s verdict if any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime charged
*
The “J.A.” is the Joint Appendix filed by the parties in
this appeal.
4
beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Penniegraft, 641
F.3d 566, 571 (4th Cir. 2011) (emphasis in original).
Appellant’s final contention fails. Considering the evidence
presented at trial, a rational trier of fact could have found
Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order
denying Appellant’s motion to suppress and the judgment after
trial are affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5