United States v. McCall

Defendant appealed his conviction after pleading guilty to one count of producing and attempting to produce child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) and 2. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court erred in accepting his plea because the video in question did not satisfy the “sexually explicit conduct” element of section 2251(a). In this case, the record unequivocally establishes qualitative and quantitative distinctions between defendant's actions and those of the defendant in United States v. Steen. The court agreed with the Government that Steen did not adopt a special per se rule for surreptitious recording cases that requires an affirmative display or sexual act by a minor. Because Steen does not compel the interpretation of section 2251(a) and “lascivious exhibition” that defendant now advances, he cannot show that the district court plainly erred in accepting his plea. The court also rejected defendant's argument that the district court plainly erred in accepting his guilty plea because his admission that the phone he used to record the victim was manufactured outside of Texas was insufficient to satisfy section 2251(a)’s interstate commerce requirement. The court rejected the argument based on the cases cited and analysis articulated in United States v. Looney. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. McCall" on Justia Law