United States v. Robert Hedrick , 583 F. App'x 364 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-40134 Document: 00512813658 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-40134
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 24, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ROBERT L. HEDRICK,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:11-CR-715-1
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Robert L. Hedrick appeals his convictions on two counts of distributing
child pornography. Count three alleged that Hedrick knowingly distributed
child pornography between March 8, 2010, and September 16, 2010, and count
four alleged that he knowingly distributed child pornography between
September 14, 2010, and November 22, 1010. Hedrick was convicted following
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-40134 Document: 00512813658 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2014
No. 13-40134
a jury trial of both counts, in addition to three other counts, not at issue in this
appeal.
He argues that the district court erred by entering a judgment on both
counts of distributing child pornography because the counts are either
multiplicitous or there was insufficient evidence supporting count three.
Hedrick contends that the evidence was insufficient because the Government
failed to prove that a female depicted in images sent on September 14, 2010,
to an undercover detective in Wisconsin was a child.
An indictment is multiplicitous if it charges a single offense in more than
one count. United States v. Woerner, 709 F.3d 527, 538 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
134 S. Ct. 146 (2013). We review district court rulings on multiplicity
challenges de novo. United States v. Kimbrough, 69 F.3d 723, 728-29 (5th Cir.
1995).
The district court specifically instructed the jury that with respect to
count three, it could only consider the alleged transfer of child pornography to
a Louisiana detective on September 14, 2010, and that it could not consider the
transfer to the Wisconsin detective. The court further instructed that with
respect to count four, it could only consider the alleged transfer of child
pornography to Louisiana detectives on September 20th and 23rd, 2010.
Because each count was based on separate transfers of child pornography on
different dates, Hedrick has failed to show that the indictment was
multiplicitous. See Woerner, 709 F.3d at 541.
Nor is the evidence insufficient on count three. The Louisiana detective
testified, and the record reflects, that Hedrick transferred images containing
child pornography to the detective on September 14, 2010. Thus, a rational
jury could have found the elements of distribution of child pornography in
count three beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Daniels, 723 F.3d
2Case: 13-40134 Document: 00512813658 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/24/2014
No. 13-40134
562, 569 (5th Cir.), modified in part on reh’g, 729 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 2013),
cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 973, 974, 975, 977 (2014); 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3