United States v. Stuart Romm

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that knowingly taking possession of files in internet cache, by accessing and manipulating them, constituted knowing receipt of those files
• holding that because the given instructions required the same finding as the defendant’s proffered instructions, refusal to give defendant’s instructions did not constitute error
• holding that the defendant must know that internet cache images are stored on a hard drive in his possession to possess those images
• holding that defendant “possess[es]” data if he knows it resides on his physical device and can share it with others
• holding that a person receives child por- nography if he seeks it out
• concluding that defendant “exercised control over the cached images while they were contemporaneously saved to his cache and displayed on his screen” because, “[a]t that moment,” he “could print the images, enlarge them, copy them, or email them to others”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).