IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-40294 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GRADY LYNN COX,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:98-CR-26-ALL -------------------- February 26, 2001

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Grady Lynn Cox appeals his conviction on three counts of

receiving visual depictions of nude minors. See

(a)(2).

Cox argues that the Government presented insufficient evidence

to show that he “knowingly receive[d]” child pornography as

required by

(a)(2). We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Viewed in the light most favorable

to the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 00-40294 -2-

determination. See United States v. Shabazz,

(5th Cir. 1993).

Cox argues that

(a)(2) is unconstitutionally

vague because it fails to specify whether digital information

constituting visual depictions must be stored or maintained in

order to be “receive[d].” Because he did not raise this issue in

the district court, we review for plain error only. See United

States v. Calverley,

(5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).

We perceive no error, plain or otherwise. See Buckley v. Collins,

(5th Cir. 1990).

Cox contends that the district court committed plain error

when it instructed the jury that (i) the visual depictions did not

“have to be maintained or stored” and (ii) if it determined that he

had requested the depictions and that they were sent to him

electronically, it could find that he “knowingly received” them.

Again, Cox has show no error, plain or otherwise. See United

States v. Inocencio,

(5th Cir. 1994).

Cox argues that the district court abused its discretion in

giving a modified Allen1 charge to the jury. He asserts that the

instruction was unduly coercive. Having reviewed the

circumstances, we cannot agree. See United States v. Lindell,

(5th Cir. 1989); United States v. Clayton,

(5th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

1 Allen v. United States,

(1896).