Filed: Mar. 26, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: 12-135-cr (L) United States v. Kornhauser UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUM
Summary: 12-135-cr (L) United States v. Kornhauser UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMM..
More
12-135-cr (L)
United States v. Kornhauser
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1,
2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1.
WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON
ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 26th day of March, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, Jr.,
7 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
8 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
9 Circuit Judges.
10
11
12
13
14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
15
16 Appellee,
17
18 -v.- Nos. 12-135-cr (L)
19 12-1448-cr (Con)
20 JULIUS KORNHAUSER,
21
22 Defendant-Appellant.
23
24
25 FOR APPELLANT: LAWRENCE GERZOG, New York, NY.
26
27 FOR APPELLEE: SARAH E. McCALLUM, Assistant United
28 States Attorney (Katherine Polk Failla,
29 Assistant United States Attorney, on the
30 brief), for Preet Bharara, United States
31 Attorney for the Southern District of New
32 York, New York, NY.
33
1 Consolidated appeals from the United States District
2 Court for the Southern District of New York (McMahon, J. and
3 Preska, C.J.).
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
6 AND DECREED that the judgments of the District Courts are
7 AFFIRMED.
8 After a three-day jury trial, Defendant-Appellant
9 Julius Kornhauser was convicted of possessing and receiving
10 child pornography in violation of Title 18, United States
11 Code, Sections 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (a)(2)(A), respectively.
12 After dismissing the first count for possession of child
13 pornography, Kornhauser was sentenced to 168 months’
14 imprisonment for receiving child pornography. Kornhauser
15 appeals (1) the judgment of conviction and sentence entered
16 on January 5, 2012, by the United States District Court for
17 the Southern District of New York (McMahon, J.) and (2) a
18 judgment entered on March 23, 2012, in the United States
19 District Court for the Southern District of New York
20 (Preska, C.J.) revoking his supervised release - previously
21 imposed for an unrelated tax fraud conviction - on account
22 of the above-referenced conviction. We assume the parties’
23 familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this
24 case.
2
1 DISCUSSION
2 A. The Trial
3 Kornhauser alleges that the district court committed
4 three procedural errors at trial: (1) admitting images of
5 child pornography recovered from his computer for display to
6 the jury; (2) excluding his testimony as to his uncle’s
7 “problem[atic] sexual behavior;” and (3) denying his
8 preferred jury instructions. He also challenges the overall
9 sufficiency of the evidence. All four lack merit.
10 Kornhauser first contends that, because there could be
11 no serious dispute that the images found on his computer
12 were child pornography, the images’ prejudicial effect
13 outweighed their probative value. In other cases involving
14 child pornography, this Court has permitted admission of
15 similar images even where the defendant stipulated to its
16 existence. See, e.g., United States v. Polouizzi, 564 F.3d
17 142, 152-153 (2d Cir. 2009). Kornhauser does not suggest
18 that this case merits a departure from our precedent. The
19 district court here considered whether the probative value
20 of publishing the images to the jury was substantially
21 outweighed by its prejudicial effect and concluded that it
22 was not.
3
1 Second, Kornhauser contends that he should have been
2 permitted to testify about his uncle’s “history of
3 problem[atic] sexual behavior.” Notably, at trial
4 Kornhauser did not articulate how or whether this testimony
5 would be relevant to child pornography. Evidence of another
6 party’s guilt “may be excluded where it ... is speculative
7 or remote” relative to the crime with which defendant is
8 charged. Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 327
9 (2006). Testimony relating to his uncle’s sexual history
10 could have “intensifie[d] the grave risk of jury confusion”
11 and would have added little to the trial. Wade v. Mantello,
12
333 F.3d 51, 62 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks
13 omitted). The district court was within its discretion in
14 excluding this testimony.
15 Third, Kornhauser asserts that the district court
16 should have used jury instructions he proffered. A
17 “defendant challenging the district court’s rejection of his
18 proposed jury instructions ‘must show that his proposed
19 charge accurately represented the law in every respect, and
20 that the charge actually given, viewed as a whole,
21 prejudiced him.’” United States v. Archer,
671 F.3d 149, 158
22 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Feliciano,
223 F.3d
4
1 102, 116 (2d Cir. 2000)). Kornhauser’s proposed
2 instructions focused on the differences between proving that
3 a defendant viewed or received child pornography. This
4 distinction was accomplished by the district court’s
5 thorough instructions, which twice noted that “the
6 government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
7 defendant. . . was aware that he had received or attempted
8 to receive the visual depiction that constitutes child
9 pornography.” Kornhauser was not prejudiced by these
10 instructions.
11 Finally, Kornhauser contends that the evidence was
12 insufficient to merit conviction. This Court has previously
13 ruled that automatic downloading of temporary internet files
14 can constitute “knowing receipt” of child pornography when
15 the defendant searched for child pornography on the internet
16 and demonstrated his awareness of the likelihood that, in so
17 doing, he had downloaded temporary internet files containing
18 child pornography, e.g. by attempting to delete them.
19 United States v. Ramos,
685 F.3d 120, 132 (2d Cir. 2012).
20 Here, Kornhauser viewed at least 700 images of child
21 pornography, created bookmarks for child pornography
22 websites, and installed and regularly ran (including the day
5
1 before the search that led to his arrest) software designed
2 to delete temporary internet files. In light of this
3 evidence, a rational jury could have concluded that
4 Kornhauser knew he had received child pornography on his
5 computer. His contention that the evidence was insufficient
6 is therefore without merit.
7 B. The Sentencing
8 Kornhauser contends, first, that the district court
9 erred in dismissing the possession charge in lieu of the
10 receipt charge. This argument is without merit; the court’s
11 decision was well-founded, explained in its expansive
12 sentencing statement, and strongly supported by the record.
13 Kornhauser also argues that his sentence was
14 procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The court
15 correctly calculated the Guidelines range and then explained
16 why, in light of the parties’ arguments in this case, it
17 felt that the Guidelines reflected the most appropriate
18 sentence; there was no procedural error. See id. at 190-
19 193.
20 Furthermore, the court’s well-reasoned, well-
21 articulated sentencing statement indicated an awareness that
22 the Guidelines range for receipt of child pornography is
6
1 quite severe. Far from relying exclusively on the
2 Guidelines range, the district court based its ruling on
3 Kornhauser’s past and courtroom behavior and the sentencing
4 memoranda and submissions. For the reasons articulated in
5 the district court’s sentencing statement, Kornhauser’s
6 sentence was substantively reasonable.
7 We have considered Kornhauser’s remaining arguments and
8 find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated
9 above, the judgments of the district courts are AFFIRMED.
10
11 FOR THE COURT:
12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
13
14
7
