United States v. Carani

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “notion” that defendant “could knowingly make his child pornography available for others to access and download without this qualifying as ‘distribution’ does not square with the plain meaning of the word”
• holding that making pornography available on file-sharing software qualifies as A distribution @
• holding that making pornography available on file-sharing software qualifies as “distribution”
• holding that making pornography available on file-sharing software qualifies as “distribution”
• holding that making pornography available on file-sharing software qualifies as “distribution”
• finding that the defendant distributed child pornography when he posted videos on a file-sharing program and knew that other users were downloading these videos from his shared folder

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).