United States v. Gauld, No. 15-1690 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography and admitted that he was previously adjudicated guilty as a juvenile of a sexual offense involving a minor. On appeal, defendant appealed his sentence and a special condition of supervised release. The court concluded that, under United States v. Woodard, the district court did not err by holding that defendant's juvenile adjudication qualifies as a prior conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(1). The court also concluded that, given the circumstances of defendant's crime, it was not plain error for the district court to prohibit defendant's internet access by banning his use of internet-connected computing devices. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The district court correctly applied this court's decision in U.S. v. Woodward, 694 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2012) in holding defendant's juvenile adjudication counted as a prior conviction under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2252(b)(1); the district court's special condition of supervision banning defendant's use of internet-connected computing devices was not plain error in light of the circumstances of the offense. Judge Kelly, dissenting on the use of defendant's juvenile adjudication.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 1, 2017.
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.