United States v. Kroeker ( 2022 )

Appellate Case: 22-3092 Document: 010110707475 Date Filed: 07/08/2022 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 8, 2022
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 22-3092
(D.C. No. 6:22-CR-10014-JWB-1)
DANIEL KROEKER, (D. Kan.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before HOLMES, BRISCOE, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Daniel Kroeker was indicted on two counts of receiving and possessing child
pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2), (a)(5)(B), and (b)(2). The
district court ordered pretrial detention under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142.
Mr. Kroeker has appealed. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and
18 U.S.C. § 3145(c), we affirm.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-3092 Document: 010110707475 Date Filed: 07/08/2022 Page: 2
I. Background
In January 2020, North Dakota law enforcement executed a search warrant at a
residence based on a report from Tumblr, a social networking website, that child sexual
abuse material had been uploaded from that location. In particular, the owner of that
Tumblr account sent an image depicting the sexual exploitation of a six-year-old. North
Dakota law enforcement reviewed the Tumblr account and identified a particular user
who had received the image of the six-year-old. A subsequent search warrant for that
account showed it was associated with Mr. Kroeker, who resided in Dighton, Kansas.
Chat records from Mr. Kroeker’s account also showed it had been used to
communicate with various individuals who self-identified as minors, and to whom child
pornography was then sent. In some of the chats, Mr. Kroeker described having been
twice suspended for sharing such images. He also encouraged others to move to another
social media platform to more freely exchange child pornography images.
In December 2020, the Kansas Bureau of Investigation obtained an arrest warrant
and interviewed Mr. Kroeker. He admitted to using Tumblr, and having engaged in chats
with minors until his account was locked. He also admitted to searching for child
pornography. Following these admissions, the KBI obtained a search warrant for
Mr. Kroeker’s residence and devices. The search yielded 25 electronic devices and
electronic storage devices, many of which contained child pornography.
The State initially arrested Mr. Kroeker in December 2020 and released him on a
surety bond with conditions. Those conditions included Mr. Kroeker’s weekly
2
Appellate Case: 22-3092 Document: 010110707475 Date Filed: 07/08/2022 Page: 3
appearance at the county courthouse, but they did not include searches at Mr. Kroeker’s
residence or monitoring of his devices.
Additional state charges were filed upon the discovery of additional evidence of
Mr. Kroeker’s illegal activities, and finally the matter was referred to the United States
Attorney’s Office. On March 22, 2022, a grand jury indicted Mr. Kroeker for receipt of
child pornography relating to the image of the six-year-old, and for possession of child
pornography relating to the images found on his devices in December 2020.
The government moved for detention pending trial, arguing Mr. Kroeker was a
danger to the community and a flight risk. A magistrate judge held a hearing and ordered
Mr. Kroeker’s release pending trial under various conditions, including a 7 p.m. curfew,
location monitoring, and no unsupervised contact with minors. The government then
appealed to the district court, which held a hearing and issued an order overturning the
magistrate judge’s order. The district court concluded that “[t]he government has carried
its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that there is no combination of
conditions that would reasonably assure the safety of others and the community if
[Mr. Kroeker] were released pending trial.” Aplt. App. at 34-35. This appeal followed.
II. Discussion
The child pornography charges against Mr. Kroeker establish a rebuttable
presumption “that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure
[his appearance] as required and the safety of the community.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(e)(3)(E). Mr. Kroeker bears the burden of producing evidence to rebut the
presumption. See United States v. Stricklin, 932 F.2d 1353, 1354 (10th Cir. 1991)
3
Appellate Case: 22-3092 Document: 010110707475 Date Filed: 07/08/2022 Page: 4
(per curiam). “Even if a defendant’s burden of production is met, the presumption
remains a factor for consideration by the district court in determining whether to release
or detain.” Id. at 1355. At the same time, “the burden of persuasion regarding risk-of-
flight and danger to the community always remains with the government.” Id. at
1354-55.
We review the district court’s ultimate detention decision de novo because it
presents mixed questions of law and fact; however, we review the underlying
findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610, 613
(10th Cir. 2003). “A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to
support it, the reviewing court, on review of the entire record, is left with the definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Gilgert,
314 F.3d 506, 515 (10th Cir. 2002) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).
We review the district court’s findings with significant deference, cognizant that “our
role is not to re-weigh the evidence.” Id. at 515-16.
We examine four factors in determining whether any release conditions will
reasonably assure Mr. Kroeker’s appearance and the safety of others and the
community: “(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged . . . ; (2) the
weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the
person . . . ; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the
community that would be posed by the person’s release.” § 3142(g).
4
Appellate Case: 22-3092 Document: 010110707475 Date Filed: 07/08/2022 Page: 5
A. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense Charged
Mr. Kroeker says that in considering this factor, the district court focused on
the ubiquity of internet-accessible devices and the approximately 18 months1 that
Mr. Kroeker’s devices contained child pornography. He argues these circumstances
are common to nearly all child-pornography defendants and that by the district
court’s reasoning, no such defendant would ever be eligible for release. We disagree
with this characterization of the district court’s order, which stated:
[T]here is evidence that Defendant’s conduct went beyond simply
possessing images of child pornography and involved direct
communication with the parent of a young child about sexual abuse of
that child. The [government’s] proffer indicates Defendant’s
communication encouraged the parent to engage in sexual abuse of the
child and to share images of that abuse, and that the parent in fact
shared an image of the minor with Defendant.
Aplt. App. at 31. Mr. Kroeker does not challenge the accuracy of these factual
findings, which the district court found indicate strongly that Mr. Kroeker’s release
would pose a high risk to the community, and “particularly to minors who are unable
to protect themselves.” Id. We agree with the district court that these findings
distinguish Mr. Kroeker’s case from those involving only possession of images
downloaded from the internet. Id.2
1
The district court characterized these 18 months as a “significant period of
time [that] indicates an abiding interest in and pursuit of child pornography over a
lengthy period, and suggests a high propensity to engage in such conduct.” Aplt.
App. at 32.
2
Other evidence further supports the district court’s conclusion. For example,
it appears Mr. Kroeker communicated directly via chat rooms with individuals who
identified themselves as minors, and that he sent images of child pornography to
5
Appellate Case: 22-3092 Document: 010110707475 Date Filed: 07/08/2022 Page: 6
B. Weight of the Evidence
The district court found that the weight of the evidence against Mr. Kroeker is
“strong.” Id. at 32 (“The proffer indicates the government possesses evidence of
electronic records supporting the allegations in the indictment, physical evidence
obtained as a result of search warrants, and admissions by Defendant tending to support
the allegations. The government represents that it has evidence connecting the
communications and images at issue to Defendant and his residence.”). Mr. Kroeker’s
briefing makes no effort to challenge that finding, and we find no fault with it. The
first two factors, then, weigh decidedly against release.
C. History and Characteristics of the Person
Section 3142(g) instructs the judicial officer to consider “the history and
characteristics of the person,” including:
(A) the person’s character, physical and mental condition, family
ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the
community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or
alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at
court proceedings; and
(B) whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, the
person was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial,
sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under
Federal, State, or local law[.]
§ 3142(g)(3)(A)-(B). As the district court noted, Mr. Kroeker is 47 and has no prior
criminal convictions or known criminal history beyond the instant charges. He is an
those individuals. Mr. Kroeker also claimed in certain chats that his Tumblr account
was twice suspended, yet having his account suspended did not discourage him from
continuing to search for, and share, child pornography.
6
Appellate Case: 22-3092 Document: 010110707475 Date Filed: 07/08/2022 Page: 7
unemployed truck driver and receives approximately $3,500 a month in
unemployment benefits. He had a stroke in 2020 and has ongoing health issues.
Mr. Kroeker owns a residence in Dighton, Kansas, where he lives by himself. He is
divorced and has no children. He has two siblings in Colorado, one of whom
attended the detention hearing. He also has ties to a local church, but that connection
dates back nine months at most.
The government asserts that Mr. Kroeker’s history and characteristics make
him a flight risk. In addition to the fact that Mr. Kroeker’s ties to Dighton are
minimal, the government also notes that he speaks Spanish fluently and that his
mother lives in Paraguay, where Mr. Kroeker lived when he was younger. The
government asserts that Mr. Kroeker could walk away from his home in Dighton and
abscond to Paraguay “or elsewhere in the southern hemisphere.” Appellees’ Mem.
Br. at 11. But the government points to no evidence that Mr. Kroeker has been to
Paraguay since he entered the United States approximately 20 years ago. And other
than the fact that he speaks Spanish, the government offers no support for its
speculation that he might flee to some other part of South America.
For his part, Mr. Kroeker emphasizes that he was on pretrial release in
connection with his state charges and did not violate any of the terms of release. The
government notes, however, that state resources for monitoring defendants on pretrial
release are limited. Mr. Kroeker apparently only had to report to the county
courthouse on a weekly basis, and the State’s monitoring of Mr. Kroeker’s internet
use was non-existent. In addition, the range of potential punishment relating to the
7
Appellate Case: 22-3092 Document: 010110707475 Date Filed: 07/08/2022 Page: 8
state charges was much lower than the potential 20 years Mr. Kroeker faces under the
pending federal charges, see 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2)—which is a consideration we
have found relevant in other cases. See Cisneros, 328 F.3d at 618 (noting that
although defendant had complied with terms of conditional release in Arizona, “she
reasonably believed she was facing only three to four years in jail, whereas now she
knows that she is facing the prospect of life imprisonment”).
The district court found that Mr. Kroeker’s history and characteristics
generally weigh in favor of release. We might have weighed this factor differently,
but we cannot reweigh the evidence on clear-error review, see Gilgert, 314 F.3d at
515-16, and a factfinder’s choice between two permissible views of the evidence
cannot be clearly erroneous, see Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564,
574 (1985).
D. Danger to the Community
The fourth factor requires the judicial officer to assess “the nature and
seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by
[Mr. Kroeker’s] release.” § 3142(g)(4). “The concern about safety is to be given a
broader construction than the mere danger of physical violence. Safety to the
community refers to the danger that the defendant might engage in criminal activity
to the detriment of the community.” United States v. Cook, 880 F.2d 1158, 1161
(10th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court
cited evidence that Mr. Kroeker successfully encouraged a third party to engage in
sexual abuse of a minor, and that he has communicated with individuals who
8
Appellate Case: 22-3092 Document: 010110707475 Date Filed: 07/08/2022 Page: 9
self-identified with minors and shared child pornography images with them. This
evidence supports the district court’s conclusion that the danger Mr. Kroeker poses to
minors “strongly favors” detention. Aplt. App. at 33.
III. Conclusion
The district court considered the evidence in light of the relevant statutory
factors and the presumption of detention, and it made the necessary factual findings
to support its pretrial detention order. We affirm.
Mr. Kroeker’s Motion to File Partially Sealed Appendix is granted.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
9