United States v. Michael Manning

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a deviation from the guidelines because of a policy disagreement is permissible but not required
• finding that defendant’s “extensive knowledge of, and interest in, child pornography, were probative as circumstantial evidence regarding [his] knowing possession” of child pornography
• noting that we reverse an erroneous evidentiary ruling “only if [the] error affects the substantial rights of the defendant or has more than a slight influence on the [jury’s] verdict”
• affirming a conviction for receipt of child pornography despite the defendant’s baseless claim that his wife accessed his computer remotely and framed him for the crime
• “[W]hile a district court may choose to deviate from the guidelines because of a policy disagreement, a district court is not required to do so.” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).