USA v. Larry Caillier, II, No. 11-30099 (5th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-30099 Document: 00511613310 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-30099 Summary Calendar September 26, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. LARRY CAILLIER, II, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:10-CR-76-1 Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Larry Caillier, II, appeals from his guilty plea conviction for receiving child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Caillier to 168 months of imprisonment, 15 years of supervised release, and registration as a sex offender. He argues on appeal that none of the four images he received on his cellular phone constituted child pornography and that he therefore pleaded guilty to a crime that was never committed. Because he has raised this argument for the first time on appeal, we review the issue only * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 11-30099 Document: 00511613310 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2011 No. 11-30099 for plain error. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009); United States v. Marek, 238 F.3d 310, 315 (5th Cir. 2001) (en banc). Caillier specifically asserts that the sole photograph showing the victim s genitals or pubic area does not qualify as the lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A)(v) because the victim s genitals or pubic area is covered by clothing in the photograph, the focal point of the photograph is not the victim s genitals or pubic area, and the other aspects of the depiction in the photograph do not meet the relevant Dost1 factors. See United States v. Steen, 634 F.3d 822, 826-27 (5th Cir. 2011) (analyzing Dost factors to determine whether depictions meet definition of lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area). After examination of the evidence and analysis of the Dost factors, we conclude that Caillier has failed to show clear or obvious error as to this issue. See Puckett, 129 S. Ct. at 1429. The district court s judgment is AFFIRMED. 1 United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828, 832 (S.D. Cal. 1986). 2
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.
