US v. Jack Vanlaar, No. 13-4707 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4707 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JACK STEVEN VANLAAR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00119-CCE-1) Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: August 4, 2014 Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George E. Crump, III, LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE E. CRUMP, III, Rockingham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jack Steven Vanlaar pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b)(1) (2012). received a 190-month sentence. He On appeal, Vanlaar argues that the district court erred in applying a five-level enhancement for distribution for the receipt, or expectation of receipt, of a thing of value, but not for pecuniary gain under Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) (2012). U.S. Finding no error, we affirm the sentence. We ensuring review there reasonableness, Gall v. U.S. significant first including improper calculation of the Guidelines range. 552 no for error, States, is sentence procedural United that a 38, 51 (2007). When evaluating Guidelines calculations, we review the district court s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 292 (4th Cir. 2012). The Guidelines provide multiple categories distribution enhancements under USSG § 2G2.2(b)(3). categories, receipt, qualifies of distribution a for thing a of for the value, five-level 2 receipt, but not or for enhancement of Among these expectation pecuniary under of gain USSG § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B), 1 while distribution of child pornography that is not in exchange for money or other things of value and that is not to minors qualifies for a two-level enhancement under USSG § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F). 2 The including Guidelines possession define with distribution intent to as distribute, any act, production, transmission, advertisement, and transportation, related to the transfer of minor. material USSG involving § 2G2.2 cmt. the n.1. sexual The exploitation definition of a includes posting material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor on a website for public viewing. peer-to-peer file-sharing Id. program We have held that use of a qualifies as distribution under § (F). United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). We reasoned that, by creating and using a shared folder knowledge with that others could access the child pornography files within, a defendant commits an act related to the transfer of material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor. Id. (quoting USSG § 2G2.2 cmt. n.1). The Guidelines define distribution for the receipt, or expectation of receipt, of a thing of value, but not for pecuniary gain as any transaction, 1 Hereafter referred to as § (B). 2 Hereafter referred to as § (F). 3 including bartering or other in-kind transaction that value, but not for profit. is conducted for a thing USSG § 2G2.2 cmt. n.1. of As an example, the Guidelines explain that, in a case involving the bartering of child pornographic material, the thing of value is the child pornographic material received in exchange for other child pornographic material bartered in consideration for the material received. Vanlaar does Id. not dispute that pornography under USSG § 2G2.2(b)(3). he distributed child He argues, however, that his use of a file-sharing program should have subjected him only to the two-level enhancement under § (F), not the five-level enhancement under § (B), absent specific evidence in the record demonstrating that he shared child pornography files for the purpose of receiving something in return. Vanlaar s § (B) enhancement was based on his use of GigaTribe: a peer-to-peer file sharing system platform on which users or friends of each other can download and/or share part or all of their files on their computer depending on the choices they make. The form of of the investigating case agent and a computer forensics expert. In GigaTribe Government chat logs submitted and evidence presented the in the testimony United States v. McManus, 734 F.3d 315 (4th Cir. 2013), the court addressed the five-level enhancement challenged here. The district court did not have the benefit of McManus when it made 4 its sentencing decision as it was decided several weeks after the district court sentenced Vanlaar. § (B) enhancement requires a We held in McManus that a showing of sufficient individualized evidence of . . . intent to distribute . . . pornographic materials in expectation of receipt of a thing of value. Id. at 322. McManus addressed the GigaTribe peer-to-peer file-sharing network also at issue here. However, in McManus, we concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the enhancement because the government relied on McManus sharing his folders individualized only evidence to and did not demonstrate present intent any to actual distribute pornographic materials in expectation of receipt of a thing of value. Id. at 322. We suggested in McManus what evidence sufficient to support the § B enhancement. demonstrate individualized intent by might be The government may showing that a user distributed his files to any user as a barter or trade, that Gigatribe enforces a rule that friends must make files available to each other, or that a strong custom has arisen within the Gigatribe community to that same effect. Id. at 322. We noted that if users communicate with one another to gain access to files, then the Government should be able to gather actual individualized evidence to satisfy the second element of § (B) 5 by seizing defendants other users. chat logs with undercover agents and Id. The chat logs here demonstrate that Vanlaar shared his password to his shared folders with the expectation that the other GigaTribe user would reciprocate and provide a password so that Vanlaar could view and download the other user s files. There are several sequences in the chat logs demonstrating that Vanlaar intended to share with certain individuals only if he would receive files in return. The way the GigaTribe system works, as the district court noted, one user must first provide a password. The system does not appear to simultaneous or enforced reciprocal sharing. be set up for It was Vanlaar s practice to ask for a password in return when he was the first to share access. The chat logs also demonstrate that he would not provide his password to another user when the first user did not have any files that he wanted to view. The facts in the record indicate that, at the very least, Vanlaar had the expectation that in distributing his child pornography files through GigaTribe that other users would return the favor and supply him with access to their files as well. In light of this and in consideration of McManus, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Vanlaar possessed the requisite expectation necessary for applying the § (B) enhancement. 6 Accordingly, dispense with contentions are oral we affirm argument adequately Vanlaar s because presented in the the sentence. facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
