United States v. Patrick Callaway
United States v. Patrick Callaway
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 2, 2011 No. 10-10493 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus STACY ONKEN, Defendant-Appellant.
***************
No. 10-10575 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PATRICK A. CALLAWAY, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 4:09-CR-152-1 No. 4:09-CR-171-1
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:* In this consolidated appeal, Stacy Onken and Patrick Callaway appeal their sentences for receipt of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). They contend that the district court erroneously applied the five-level enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) for distributing child pornography for the receipt, or expectation of receipt, of a thing of value but not for pecuniary gain.
Onken and Callaway were sophisticated users of computers and the file- sharing program who knowingly made their child pornography files available to others and obtained child pornography files from the file-sharing network. Their knowing contribution to the exchange of images of child pornography shows that they had an interest in facilitating access to child pornography so that they could obtain more of it from the file-sharing network. The district court did not err in finding that they distributed child pornography with the expectation of receiving child pornography. See United States v. Roman, 393 F. App’x 149, 149-50 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 964 (2010); United States v. Moore, 328 F. App’x 308, 309 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Sistrunk, No. 01-30974, 2002 WL 971623, at *1 (5th Cir. May 3, 2002) (unpublished).
The judgments are AFFIRMED.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.