United States v. Schene

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “error in admitting the testimony was not plain” in part because “the jury had already heard similar testimony from [another witness], and the other evidence of [defendant’s] guilt was substantial”
• holding that there was sufficient evidence to prove that a hard drive found in Oklahoma was a “material” that had traveled in interstate or foreign commerce upon proof that the hard drive was manufactured in Singapore
• noting that earlier Tenth Circuit case held that “producing” did not encompass copying images onto a computer diskette, but rejecting under plain-error standard appellant’s argument that government failed to satisfy § 2252A(a)(5)(B
• noting that earlier Tenth Circuit case held that “producing” did not encompass copying images onto a computer diskette, but rejecting under plain-error standard appellant’s argument that government failed to satisfy § 2252A(a)(5)(B
• upholding admission of uncharged images of child pornography to show defendant “knowingly possessed” charged images
• affirming district court’s admission of uncharged child pornography images for the purpose of proving the defendant’s intent and knowledge

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).