United States v. Nathan Nosley, No. 22-1182 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence of 1,680 months imprisonment for seven counts of child-exploitation and child pornography offenses. Specifically, he challenged the jury selection, the jury instructions, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the reasonableness of the district court’s sentence.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained here the magistrate judge conducted extensive voir dire, and the parties had ample opportunity to examine the jurors. Throughout the process, the magistrate judge took care to rehabilitate wavering jurors by focusing them on what they were being asked to do as jurors—listen to the evidence and fairly and impartially judge the facts. Ultimately, the magistrate judge accepted Juror 3’s responses as indicating that he would be able to put aside his visceral reactions and impartially consider the evidence. On this record, that finding was not a “manifest error,” and the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to remove Juror 3.
Further, the court explained that the district court carefully considered the 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a) factors and sentenced Defendant within the guidelines range, the calculation of which Defendant does not challenge. The district court noted Defendant’s “extremely dangerous” conduct in pulling a loaded handgun from his waistband and pointing it at a law-enforcement officer’s head when he was arrested. The court then emphasized that Defendant’s offense conduct was “particularly disturbing.” It also found by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant had sexually abused his ex-girlfriend’s daughter. It did not err in considering this conduct, even though Nosley was acquitted of it in state court.
Court Description: [Gruender, Author, with Loken and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. On this record, the magistrate judge conducting voir dire did not abuse his discretion in refusing to remove jurors defendant had challenged for cause; 18 U.S.C. Section 2251(a) contains no scienter element as to the victim's age, and a mistake as to age is not a defense to charges of producing child pornography; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for producing and distributing child pornography; at sentencing, the district court could consider similar conduct even if defendant had been acquitted of the charges in state court; defendant's sentence, the statutory maximum on each count, to be served consecutively, for a total sentence of 1,680 months, was not substantively unreasonable.
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.