United States v. McCoy, No. 16-1853 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his 121 month sentence and conviction for possessing child pornography. The court concluded that defendant's conditions of release, which he proposed, expressly authorized the warrantless searches of his computer's internet and email usage history; the search and seizure were reasonable; and the district court properly denied the motion to suppress. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and the district court properly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal. As to defendant's sentence, the court concluded that the district court did not err in applying an enhancement required by 18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(2) where his prior conviction for transporting obscene matters in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1462 is related to sexual assault and child pornography. Finally, the district court properly exercised its discretion in denying a downward departure, even in light of defendant's prostate cancer, where the district court had no unconstitutional motive and knew of its authority to grant a downward departure. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Shepherd, Circuit Judge, and Ebinger, District Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The conditions of defendant's supervised release authorized the search of his computers which led to the seizure of child pornography; the search was within the scope of the conditions of release and the search and seizure were reasonable; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for possession of child pornography; defendant's conviction for transporting obscene materials in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1462 triggered an enhanced penalty in this case as the materials involved in the earlier conviction related to sexual assault and child pornography; while defendant suffered from prostrate cancer, such a condition did not qualify for a downward departure under Guidelines Sec. 5H1.4 as the court found it unlikely that defendant would require special care the BOP could not provide or that his physical condition would impair his ability to function; as a result, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the departure based on health as it did not have an unconstitutional motive and knew of its authority to grant a departure.
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.