WPC]! `Gk-]6AVZKS-@FsPrl_UJbv ;p]6_-Ҷő Rx_Rx*`{5ҡf$494F;#S)uݼ3o\|uq9"x %rw7 M5riJ΢kM"v͘ĶFmX/p @>Y ԗdcс$[&52l J *=cHmh`_?JDp϶I.`"iЂL ?.޽suuƬR;Wd6IjټGpD2nP_zA ˆ52$.t`ϮZRw/W׸~RfgGHaʵ3jR,$J ZW܌{bg#F U> %E 0GK U:   ^ w 4   0c b- 0D5 y bE mNU 8uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu}"""">s44444444444444444444444444 B 0 HP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0<( 9Z+&Courier RegularX($XmTXXX,`  "CG Times Bold `$X"XXX  @   *    _OftheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia,sittingbydesignation.|;1s n1 H3|x(;3$ !X&XXX  - -(5$  9    `$X"XXX  @   5    _Becausethegovernmentfailedeffectivelytopreservetheissue  ofharmlesserrorreviewonappeal,wedonotaddressthatissue.- -U<4 9Z+ Courier New    $ ' Turner0Turner .      `$X"XXX  @   4    _TheCourtappliedthesamereasoningtofind2256(8)(D)  contrarytotheFirstAmendment.Thatsection,definingas  prohibitedchildpornography"suchvisualdepiction[that]is \ advertised,promoted,presented,described,ordistributedinsuch 2 amannerthatconveystheimpressionthatthematerialisor X containsavisualdepictionofaminorengaginginsexually . explicitconduct,"isnotatissueinthiscase.  `$X"XXX  @   3    _Congresshasrespondedwithamendmentstothe_CPPA_Ԁinthe  ProsecutorialRemediesandOtherToolstoendtheExploitationof  ChildrenTodayActof2003("PROTECT")thatspecifyaclassof \ obscenechildpornographyreaching"Anypersonwho...knowingly 2 produces,distributes,receives,orpossesseswithintentto X distribute,avisualdepictionofanykind,includingadrawing, . cartoon,sculpture,orpainting,that:   8  (1)(A)depictsaminorengaginginsexuallyexplicit `  conduct;and6     8  (B)isobscene;or \    8  (2)(A)depictsanimagethatis,orappearstobe,of  2  aminorengagingingraphicbestiality,sadisticor   masochisticabuse,orsexualintercourse,including   genital-genital,oral-genital,anal-genital,or d  oral-anal,whetherbetweenpersonsofthesameor :  oppositesex;and`    8  (B)lacksseriousliterary,artistic,political,or 6 scientificvalue;orattemptsorconspirestodoso,   shallbesubjecttothepenaltiesprovidedinsection  2252A(b)(1),includingthepenaltiesprovidedforcases h involvingapriorconviction.>   18U.S.C.1466A(a)(2003). 4 `$X"XXX  @   1    _Thestatuteprovidesthat"Anypersonwho...knowingly  possessesanybook,magazine,periodical,film,videotape,computer  disk,oranyothermaterialthatcontainsanimageofchild \ pornographythathasbeenmailed,orshippedortransportedin 2 interstateorforeigncommercebyanymeans,includingbycomputer, X orthatwasproducedusingmaterialsthathavebeenmailed,or . shippedortransportedininterstateorforeigncommercebyany   means,includingbycomputer...shallbepunished...."18   U.S.C.2252A(a)(5)(B). i `$X"XXX  @   2    _Wenotedthat"theNinthCircuitstruckdownonlythoseportions  oftheActmakingillegalpossessionofcomputergeneratedimages  offictitiouschildren."HiltonIV,257F.3dat53.The \ governmentarguesthatthislanguageimpliesthatwefoundHilton's 2 imagestorepresentactualchildren.Ourreviewhere,though, X concernsthefindingsoffactthedistrictcourtactuallymade. d(V2`$ !X&XXX       0   !X"XXX  _XrXXX"JXXr8"XXdd8  *!@4 4 UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals  F~J@ FortheFirstCircuit  F~X"XAy) ` dE<C ` A D  No.031741 ) y @UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,  % @Respondent,Appellant,    @tt)v. -}  @$DAVIDHILTON, )  @ Petitioner,Appellee.   Ay) ` dE<0` A 1 @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT f @FORTHEDISTRICTOFMAINE < @$ $ [Hon.GeneCarter,U.S.SeniorDistrictJudge]  Ay) ` dE<C` A D @'Before )y @@ @ TorruellaandHoward,CircuitJudges, % @  and_Schwarzer_, 5  *      ׀SeniorDistrictJudge.  Ay) ` dE<V` A W     F.Mark_Terison_,SeniorLitigationCounsel,withwhomPaulaD. <! _Silsby_,UnitedStatesAttorney,_was_Ԁonbrief,forappellant.  b"   BruceM.Merrill,onbrief,forappellee.  8# @ ONPETITIONFORREHEARING  j#& Ay) ` dE<#%` A $%t (   September27,2004  &Y!* Ay) ` d E<'` A  '#,& _  *!8"XXdXXd8*,X` XX*  4X ` PerCuriam. DavidHiltonwasconvictedofaonecount  violationof18U.S.C.2252A(a)(5)(B),theChildPornography x PreventionAct("CPPA"),onJune30,2000.InlightoftheSupreme $t Court'sdecisioninAshcroftv.FreeSpeechCoalition,535U.S.234   (2002),holdingthatthegovernmentmaynotcriminalizepossession |  ofnonobscenesexuallyexplicitimagesthatappearto,butdonot ( x  infact,depictactualchildren,Hiltonsoughtandwasgranted $  postconvictionreliefunder28U.S.C.2255.Thegovernment   appeals.Becausethehabeascourtcorrectlyheldthatthetrial ,|  courtdidnotfindeveryelementofthecrime,weaffirmthegrant ( ofreliefvacatingHilton'sconviction.  @ I.ProceduralHistory 0  ` A.Indictment,DismissalandAppeal  H  ` Basedonevidencediscoveredbylocallawenforcement  pursuanttoavalidsearchwarrant,afederalgrandjuryindicted l HiltononDecember17,1997,charginghimwithaonecount h violationof18U.S.C.2252A(a)(5)(B).^ 5  1      ׀Hiltonmovedtodismiss   theindictment,arguingthattheCPPAviolatedtheFirstAmendment. p!" Section2252A(a)(5)(B)criminalizestheknowingpossessionofchild #l$ pornographythathastraveledbetweenstatesorbetweencountries.  Hilton'sFirstAmendmentchallengeinvolvedthedefinitionof \ "childpornography"in18U.S.C.2256(8).Thatprovisiondefines X childpornographytoinclude"anyvisualdepiction,includingany   photograph,film,video,picture,orcomputerorcomputergenerated `  imageorpicture,whethermadeorproducedbyelectronic,  \  mechanical,orothermeans,ofsexuallyexplicitconduct,where   suchvisualdepictionis,orappearstobe,ofaminorengagingin d  sexuallyexplicitconduct."18U.S.C.2256(8)(B).Section `  2256(8)(B)wasaddedbyCongressin1996afterfindingthat"new   photographicandcomputerimagingtechnologiesmakeitpossibleto h producebyelectronic,mechanical,orothermeans,visual d depictionsofwhatappeartobechildrenengaginginsexually  explicitconductthatarevirtuallyindistinguishabletothe l unsuspectingviewerfromunretouchedphotographicimagesofactual h childrenengaginginsexuallyexplicitconduct."ChildPornography  PreventionActof1996,Pub.L.No.104-208,div.A,tit.I,121 p  (1)(5),110Stat.3009-26(1996)(emphasisadded). !l"  ` HiltonarguedthatthisnewdefinitionviolatedtheFirst "$ Amendmentbyprohibitingsomeadultpornographythatappearing t$& tobeofchildrenandbyvirtueofvaguenessandoverbreadth.  &p!( Thedistrictcourtagreed,holdingthattheCPPA's"appearstobe" '#* provisionwasoverbroadandleftunclearexactlywhatimageswere x)$, illegal.ThedistrictcourtdismissedtheindictmentonMarch26, $+t&. 1998.UnitedStatesv.Hilton,999F.Supp.131(D.Me.1998)  ("HiltonI").TheUnitedStatesappealed,andthiscourtreversed \ andreinstatedtheindictment.SeeUnitedStatesv.Hilton,167 X F.3d61(1stCir.1999)("HiltonII").    ` B.TrialandAppeal  `   ` AftertheSupremeCourtdeniedHilton'spetitionfor ( x  certiorari,thecaseadvancedtotrial.Hiltonwaivedhisrightto $  ajurytrial.Aftertheissuanceofasupersedingindictmenton   January5,2000,thedistrictcourtheardthecaseagainstHilton ,|  overthecourseofthreedays.Thiscourtreviewedthedistrict ( court'sfindingsextensivelyinUnitedStatesv.Hilton,257F.3d  50(1stCir.2001)("HiltonIV")(reviewingUnitedStatesv. 0 Hilton,No.97-78-P-C,2000U.S.Dist.LEXIS9220(D.Me.June30, , 2000)("HiltonIII")).Hereweconcentrateontheevidenceat  issueinthisappeal. 4  ` ThesearchofHilton'scomputerroomonNovember7,1997 0 producedanumberofpornographicimages.Thesewerefoundona   SonyBackupTape,inHilton'sharddrive,andprintedupandstored 8!" ina"graybox."AccordingtoAgentMarxofthelocalpolice,whom "4$ thepartiesstipulatedasacomputerforensicsexpert,theSony $& BackupTapewasusedtobackupHilton'scomputertwomonthsbefore <&!( seizure.TheSonytapecontainedthousandsofimages;the '8#* governmentintroducedsevenofthem.The"graybox"containeda )$, printoutwithfourimagesidenticaltofourintheSonytape.The @+&. harddrivecontainedthreeimages,andthiscourtonreviewfound  twotobenonexplicit.SeeHiltonIV,257F.3dat58. \  ` Toprovethattheseimagesdepictedchildren,ratherthan X adults,thegovernmentintroducedthetestimonyofDr.Lawrence   Ricci.Dr.RiccitestifiedastotheTannerScaleandits `  applicationtotheseizedimages.TheTannerScalewasdeveloped  \  throughanalysisofmanychildrenbothintheUnitedStatesand   throughouttheworldandprovidesabasisforestimatingaperson's d  stageofphysiologicaldevelopment.Dr.Riccimarkedonthebacks `  oftheimageshisopinionastothechildren'sages.Inhis   opinion,apartfromanimagethatmorphedachild'sfacewithan h adultwoman'sbody,theothernineimagesrepresentedchildrenat d variousstagesofdevelopment,rangingfrompreschooltoyoung  teen.SeeHiltonIII,2000U.S.Dist.LEXIS9220at*2326. l  ` Basedonthisevidence,thedistrictcourtfoundbeyond h areasonabledoubtthattheimagessatisfiedthedefinitionof  childpornographyin18U.S.C.2256(8).Thecourtalsofoundthe p  requiredelementofscienterandaninterstatenexus.Sincethe !l" courtdidnotfindmeritinHilton'saffirmativedefensesthathe "$ waspossessingtheimagesunderauthorityofthegovernment,it t$& convictedHiltononJune30,2000,andsubsequentlysentencedhim  &p!( tofortymonthsimprisonment. '#*  ` Hiltonappealedhisconviction,challengingthe x)$, constitutionalityoftheCPPAandthesufficiencyoftheevidence. $+t&. Hereiteratedhisaffirmativedefensethathehadcollectedthe  imagesatthegovernment'srequest.HiltonIV,257F.3d50. \ Hiltonalsoclaimedthatthedistrictcourterredinhis X sentencing.Werejectedallbutthesentencingclaim.Sincewe   concludedthattwoofthethreeharddriveimagesdidnotqualify `  aschildpornographyordidnotinvolvethesexualexploitationof  \  aminor,weremandedforresentencingbecausetherecorddidnot   supporttheSentencingGuidelinesupwardadjustmentappliedbythe d  districtcourtforpossessionof"tenormore...items, `  containingavisualdepictioninvolvingthesexualexploitationof   aminor."U.S.S.G.2G2.4(b)(2);seeHiltonIV,257F.3dat58. h AsforHilton'sconstitutionalchallenge,wenotedthatwehad d "rejectedthisclaimonHilton'searlierappeal."HiltonIV,257  F.3dat53.Hiltonaskedustoreconsiderourpriorholdingin l lightoftheNinthCircuit'sdecisioninFreeSpeechCoalitionv. h Reno,198F.3d1083(9thCir.1999),butwedeclinedtodoso._ 5  2      ׀  Id.Thus,onJuly27,2001,weaffirmedHilton'sconvictionand p  remandedforresentencing. !l"  ` Onremand,thedistrictcourtsentencedHiltonto "$ thirtyfourmonthsofincarceration. t$&  ` C.TheCPPAafterAshcroftv.FreeSpeechCoalition    ` WhileHilton'sdirectappealwaspending,theSupreme x CourtgrantedcertioraritoreviewtheNinthCircuit'sFreeSpeech $t Coalitionv.Reno,198F.3d1083(9thCir.1999),acivilsuit   challengingonitsfacetheconstitutionalityoftheCPPAas |  amendedin1996.Thekeychallenge,andtheonerelevanthere,was ( x  againstprosecutionfor"childpornography"thatonly"appearsto $  be,ofaminorengaginginsexuallyexplicitconduct."18U.S.C.   2256(8)(B).InAshcroftv.FreeSpeechCoalition,535U.S.234 ,|  (2002),theCourtaffirmedtheNinthCircuitholdingthatsuch ( prosecutionsviolatetheFirstAmendment'sprotectionagainst  governmentalabridgementofthefreedomofspeech.Id.at258;see 0 U.S.Const.amend.I. ,  ` TheFirstAmendmentdoesnotprotectobscenity,Millerv.  California,413U.S.15(1973),orthepossessionofchild 4 pornographyproducedusingchildren.Osbornev.Ohio,495U.S. 0 103,110(1990)("Itrarelyhasbeensuggestedthatthe   constitutionalfreedomforspeechandpressextendsitsimmunityto 8!" speechorwritingusedasanintegralpartofconductinviolation "4$ ofavalidcriminalstatute.")(quotingNewYorkv.Ferber,458 $& U.S.747,76162(1982)(quotingGiboneyv.EmpireStorage&Ice <&!(  Co.,336U.S.490,498(1949))). '8#*  ` TheCPPAisnotcircumscribedbytheMillerdefinitionof  obscenity.FreeSpeechCoalition,535U.S.at246.Z 5  3      ׀Therefore, \  sincethe"appearstobe"definitionprohibitsnonobscenespeech, X theFreeSpeechCoalitionCourtaddressedthegovernment's   contentionthattherationalebehindOsborneandFerberextendedto `  thecriminalizationofsexuallyexplicitimagesthatappearto  \  containchildren.Thosetwocasesviewedthetradeinand   possessionofchildpornographyasbearingaproximatelinktothe d  childabusethatproducedtheimagesinthefirstplace.SeeFree `  SpeechCoalition,535U.S.at24950.Thegovernmentpresentedtwo   typesofargumentstoshowthattheprohibitiononvirtual h pornographywasindeedproximatetocompellinginterests;one  argumentwasbasedontheinjuriesallegedlyflowingfrom"appears \ tobe"childpornographyandthesecondonprosecutorialnecessity. X  ` Twoconcernsmotivatedthefirstargument:(1)that   "pedophilesmayusevirtualchildpornographytoseducechildren," `  id.at251,and(2)thatvirtualchildpornography"whetsthe  \  appetitesofpedophilesandencouragesthemtoengageinillegal   conduct."Id.at253.Contrarytoourearlierconclusionin d  HiltonII,167F.3dat7274,theCourtheldthattheavailability `  ofvirtualchildpornographytochildabusersdoesnotprovidea   basisfortheprohibitionbecausewhile"[t]heobjectiveisto h prohibitillegalconduct...thisrestrictiongoeswellbeyond d thatinterestbyrestrictingthespeechavailabletolawabiding  adults."Id.at25253.Asfortheconcernthatvirtualchild l pornographymotivateschildabuse,theCourtdisagreedwiththe h premisebehindthegovernment'sargument:"[t]hemeretendencyof  speechtoencourageunlawfulactsisnotasufficientreasonfor p  banningit."FreeSpeechCoalition,535U.S.at253.Because !l" "[t]heGovernmenthasshownnomorethanaremoteconnection "$ betweenspeechthatmightencouragethoughtsorimpulsesandany t$& resultingchildabuse,"it"maynotprohibitspeechontheground  &p!( thatitmayencouragepedophilestoengageinillegalconduct." '#*  Id.at253_Ԅ54. x)$,  ` Thegovernment'ssecondargumentwasthateliminating   actualchildpornographynecessitatestheprohibitiononvirtual \ pornographybecausevirtualimagesareindistinguishablefromreal X ones.Id.at25455.First,thegovernmentcontendedthat   "[_v]irtual_Ԁimages...areindistinguishablefromrealones[,and] `  theyarepartofthesamemarketandareoftenexchanged."Id.at  \  254.TheCourtfoundthis"hypothesis...somewhatimplausible.   Ifvirtualimageswereidenticaltoillegalchildpornography,the d  illegalimageswouldbedrivenfromthemarketbythe `  indistinguishablesubstitutes.Fewpornographerswouldrisk   prosecutionbyabusingrealchildreniffictional,computerized h imageswouldsuffice."Id.Tothegovernment'sclaimthat d indistinguishabilitymeantthatthesuccessfulprosecutionof  actualchildpornographynecessitatedcriminalizationofvirtual l childpornography,theCourtresponded:"[_t]he_Ԁargument,in h essence,isthatprotectedspeechmaybebannedasameanstoban  unprotectedspeech.ThisanalysisturnstheFirstAmendmentupside p  down."Id.at255.ThustheCourtheldthatpossessionof !l" materialthatsatisfiedonly2256(8)(B)couldnotbepunished.Y 5  4      ׀ "$ Id.at256. t$&  ` D.PostConvictionRelief    ` BasedontheCourt'srulinginFreeSpeechCoalition, x Hiltonfiledamotionforpostconvictionreliefunder28U.S.C. $t 2255onNovember13,2002.Themagistratejudgehearingthe   petitionagreedthatHiltonwasentitledtorelief.UnitedStates |  v.Hilton,_Crim_.No.97-78-P-C,Civ.No.02-235-P-C,2003U.S. ( x  Dist.LEXIS4208,(D.Me.March20,2003)("HiltonV").The $  districtcourtadoptedthatrecommendationandvacatedHilton's   conviction.UnitedStatesv.Hilton,_Crim_.No.97-78-P-C,Civ.No. ,|  02-235-P-C,2003U.S.Dist.LEXIS8130,2003WL21135703(D.Me. ( May15,2003).Thegovernment'sappealhasplacedHilton's  petitionbeforethiscourt. 0 @$ II.Analysis  ,  ` AfterFreeSpeechCoalition,thegovernmentmustprove  thatanimagedepictsactualchildrentosustaina2252A(a)(5)(B) P conviction.BothpartiesagreethattheholdingofFreeSpeech L Coalitionappliesretroactively,asit"placescertainkindsof   primary,privateindividualconductbeyondthepowerofthe T!" criminallaw-makingauthoritytoproscribe."_Teague_v.Lane,489 #P$ U.S.288,311(1989)(quoting_Mackey_v.UnitedStates,401U.S. $& 667,675(1971)(Harlan,J.,concurringinpartanddissentingin X&!( part)). (T#*  ` Itbearsrepeatingthatthegovernmentisnotreleased )%, fromitsburdenofproofbyadefendant'sfailuretoargue,orby \+&. _anabsenceofevidenceotherwisesuggesting,theartificialityof  thechildrenportrayed.Thatthechildrenintheimagesarereal \ amountstoanelementofthecrimewhichthegovernmentmustprove, X theburdenofwhichshouldnotbedisplacedtothedefendantasan   affirmativedefense.Cf.FreeSpeechCoalition,535U.S.at256. `  "Protectedspeechdoesnotbecomeunprotectedmerelybecauseit  \  resemblesthelatter."Id.at255.Instead,"[t]heConstitution   givesacriminaldefendanttherighttodemandthat[the d  factfinder]findhimguiltyofalltheelementsofthecrimewith `  whichheischarged."UnitedStatesv.Gaudin,515U.S.506,511   (1995).Inthepresentcase,thatthechildrenintheimagesare h realisanelementofthecrime;Hiltonthereforehadarightto d havethefactfinderdecidewhetherthechildrenwerereal.Id.   ` Thegovernmenturgesthat"afactualreviewcompellingly l demonstratesthattheimagesHiltonpossessedwereindeedofactual h children."Thequestionbeforeus,though,doesnotcallforour  evaluationoftheevidencebutratherofwhatthetrialcourt p  actuallyfound. 5  5      ׀Thegovernmentadvancesoneargumentwemust !l" address,namely,thatinfinding,accordingtoDr.Ricci's "$ testimony,thattheimagesrepresentedchildrenratherthanadults, t$& thetrialcourtnecessarilyconcludedasamatteroffactthatthe  &p!( childrenwerereal.Accordingtothegovernment,itis '#* "commonsense"thatfindingsastoagebasedontheTannerScale  satisfythefurtherelementofactuality: \ 8 ` The"TannerScale"wasdevelopedthroughan X analysisof"largenumbersofchildren"both . intheUnitedStatesandthroughouttheworld.   Commonsenseestablishesthatthescalewas   developedthroughtheassessmentofactual `  children.Thereasonableandcommonsense 6   inferenceisalsothatDr.Ricci,asanexpert  \  pediatrician,wouldapplythe"TannerScale"  2  onlytoactualchildren. ` x` x ZWefindmorecommonsensicalapropositionleadingtothecontrary d  inferencethatsomeonemanufacturingimagestolooklikechildren `  willtryandwithsufficienttechnologywillmanageto   produceimagesthatwouldbeamenabletoexpertanalysisunderthe h TannerScale.Whateverparametersofbodyproportion,growthand d developmentserveassignsofageundertheTannerScale,those  parameterswillbemimickedbythevirtualpornographerwhether l bydesignorasabyproductofthegoalofrealism. h  ` Wecannotendorsetheviewthatitiscommonsensethat  thetrialcourtalsofoundormusthavefoundthattheimages p  representedrealchildren.Rather,itisplaintousthatthe !l" trialcourtfoundHiltonguiltyofpossessingimagesthatappeared "$ tobechildrenengagedinsexuallyexplicitconduct.Underthe t$& erroneousunderstandingatthetimeofconviction,possessionof  &p!( childpornographycouldbepunishedcriminallyevenifthedepicted '#* childrenwereartificialandrealchildrenwerenotinvolvedinthe x)$, productionoftheimages.Becausethetrialcourtdidnotmakea $+t&. findingoffactastoanessentialelementofthecrimethe  realityofthechildrenrepresentedintheimagesweaffirmthe \ grantofhabeasrelief. X  ` Affirmed.