U.S. v. Overton

Decision Date18 June 2009
Docket NumberNo. 08-30075.,08-30075.
Citation573 F.3d 679
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Merle OVERTON, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Anthony R. Gallagher, Office of the Federal Public Defenders for the District of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for the defendant-appellant.

Eric B. Wolff (argued), Marcia Hurd, Assistant United States Attorneys, and William W. Mercer, United States Attorney for the District of Montana, Billings, MT, for the plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:07-CR-00028-DWM.

Before THOMAS M. REAVLEY,* Senior Circuit Judge, RICHARD C. TALLMAN and MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The Opinion filed on June 18, 2009, is AMENDED as follows:

The term "natural" appearing in the second paragraph of Section I of the slip opinion appearing at page 7282, is DELETED and REPLACED with the term "biological."

The Clerk of the Court is hereby instructed to issue the mandate in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41.

OPINION

TALLMAN, Circuit Judge:

Following a two-day bench trial before the Honorable Donald W. Molloy in the District of Montana, Walter Merle Overton was convicted on two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (b), and on separate counts of receipt of child pornography and possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2) and (a)(5)(B), respectively. The district court sentenced Overton to a term of incarceration of 235 months, to be followed by a lifetime of supervised release.

Overton advances several arguments on appeal. He contends (1) that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction on the sexual exploitation counts, (2) that his conviction on the multiple counts violated the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against double jeopardy, and (3) that the district court committed reversible error in imposing his sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

I

On June 5, 2006, an 18-year-old female, JNW, walked into a Manhattan, Montana bank, and disclosed to a teller that she had been raped earlier that morning by her stepfather, who was waiting outside. The bank teller immediately alerted the local sheriff's office. Deputies responded and arrested Walter Merle Overton.

Early that morning, Overton and his wife Laura Nelson Overton, JNW's biological mother ("Nelson"), left home for work at Montana State University ("MSU") in Bozeman, where they were both employed. Overton, however, surreptitiously made his way back to their house that morning.1 Overton entered JNW's bedroom and, finding his stepdaughter alone in the house and still in bed, told her to remove her clothes.2 In addition to engaging in sexual contact, he took nude pictures of her with a digital camera in various rooms of the house.

While in custody and after waiving his Miranda rights, Overton admitted to engaging in various sexual acts with his stepdaughter. The Gallatin County Sheriff's Office began an investigation and later the Federal Bureau of Investigation became involved.3 The subsequent investigation resulted in the discovery of large quantities of electronically-stored pornographic images, many depicting children (which Overton had downloaded from the Internet), and nude pictures of JNW (which he had taken himself), all of which led to the federal charges and Overton's conviction now before us.

As he did on the morning of June 5, Overton had taken nude photographs of his stepdaughter on at least two prior occasions. The first of these incidents took place in about March 2005 when JNW was 17 years old and a minor. On this occasion, Overton confronted her with a camera and insisted that "a family should be closer and sexuality shouldn't be a big deal" and that JNW "shouldn't be afraid of[her] body." JNW ultimately acquiesced and allowed him to take nude photographs of her in various poses in both his bedroom and the living room. Overton later loaded the photographic images of JNW onto his home computer.

JNW later divulged to her mother what had occurred. Nelson confronted Overton, who admitted that he had photographed JNW and showed her at least one of the images. Nelson demanded that he dispose of the pictures and imposed a rule that Overton should not be alone with JNW in the future. Contrary to the assurances provided to his wife, Overton copied the homemade images of his minor stepdaughter to a memory device and transferred them to his work computer at MSU. Unbeknownst to Nelson or JNW, he later reinstalled the illicit images of JNW onto the home computer.

In February 2007, Overton, with counsel present, was interviewed by FBI Special Agents Kevin Damuth and John Sorensen as part of the federal investigation. During that meeting Overton admitted that he routinely downloaded pornography, including child pornography, from the Internet, which he then saved to special directory folders on his home and work computers. He described his use of the MSU computer system, through which he accessed the Internet and searched free online pornography sites using suggestive search terms such as "teens." Overton admitted that he became sexually aroused when viewing these images and characterized his conduct as an "addiction."

Overton also told the agents that he had taken nude pictures of JNW on three separate occasions in 2005 and 2006. He then transferred those photographs from his digital camera to his computers, saving them in folders similar to those in which he placed the downloaded pornographic images. Overton also identified five photographs that were taken when JNW was 17 years old. At their request, Overton provided a written statement, confirming his admissions to the FBI agents.

Law enforcement discovered large quantities of pornography and illicit material on his home and work computers. A search of Overton's two work computers, for example, revealed over six gigabytes of images and video including pornography. Overton had created an "F" partition on the hard drive where he stored pornographic images, depicting both adults and children. The investigation also uncovered the homemade images of JNW.

In July 2007, a Grand Jury indicted Overton, charging him with four federal crimes. Counts I and II charged Overton with the sexual exploitation of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (b), respectively, based on the nude photographs he took of his stepdaughter. Count III charged Overton with the knowing receipt of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), and Count IV charged him with the unlawful possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). The indictment also included a forfeiture count pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2253(a).

Overton waived his right to trial by jury and proceeded with a bench trial before Judge Molloy. At trial, the prosecution introduced numerous images presumed to be child pornography, which were received without objection, as well as various pictures of JNW, including Exhibits 6-1 through 6-5, five photographs taken during the March 2005 incident when JNW was a minor. The prosecution called a total of nine witnesses, including JNW, Nelson, and Agent Damuth, and presented Overton's written statement from the February 2007 interview with FBI agents.

At the close of the Government's case-in-chief, Overton moved for acquittal on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the elements in its case beyond a reasonable doubt, arguing that the pictures of JNW did not depict "sexually explicit conduct," as required for conviction. The district court denied the motion. Overton then took the stand in his own defense, denied matters previously admitted to FBI agents, and provided rationalizations for much of his conduct involving his stepdaughter.

At the conclusion of the two-day trial, the district court found Overton guilty on all counts and entered Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Specifically, the court found that Overton created and thereafter possessed three sexually explicit photographs of his minor stepdaughter and also downloaded numerous images of child pornography from the Internet onto his home and work computers. Overton filed a motion for post-conviction dismissal, requesting dismissal of either Count I or II and either Count III or IV, alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. The district court denied the motion in a detailed order.

The Probation Office prepared a lengthy Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") for the sentencing phase, which described in detail the circumstances of the instant offenses and Overton's background. Several sources confirmed Overton's expressed belief that it was acceptable for adults to teach underage family members about sex. The PSR also relayed a past incident described by Overton's previous wife where he allegedly propositioned one of his biological daughters to engage in sexual activity. The child was 12 years old at the time. Based on the calculated offense level and criminal history, the Probation Office recommended a Sentencing Guidelines range for imprisonment of between 188 and 235 months. This range was within the permissible statutory range for the subject offenses.4

The parties were provided with ample opportunity to review and respond to the PSR and the Probation Office's recommendation. The Government did not file objections. Overton's only objection related to the double jeopardy argument raised in his previously denied post-conviction motion to dismiss. He requested a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range.

On February 29, 2008, the district court held a sentencing hearing. After considering the arguments and evidence presented by both sides, Judge Molloy sentenced Overton to 235...

To continue reading

Request your trial
126 cases
  • United States v. Hillie
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • September 17, 2021
    ...Model Crim. Jury Instrs. 6.18.2252A (2020).10 United States v. Perkins , 850 F.3d 1109, 1121 (9th Cir. 2017) ; United States v. Overton , 573 F.3d 679, 686–87 (9th Cir. 2009).11 United States v. Wells , 843 F.3d 1251, 1253–54 (10th Cir. 2016).12 The Eleventh Circuit applied the factors in a......
  • U.S.A v. King
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • May 13, 2010
    ...the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits imposing punishment on a defendant for both offenses. United States v. Overton, 573 F.3d 679, 690 (9th Cir.2009). The Ninth Circuit employs the test from Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), to ......
  • United States v. Hillie
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • September 17, 2021
    ...Model Crim. Jury Instrs. 6.18.2252A (2020).10 United States v. Perkins , 850 F.3d 1109, 1121 (9th Cir. 2017) ; United States v. Overton , 573 F.3d 679, 686–87 (9th Cir. 2009).11 United States v. Wells , 843 F.3d 1251, 1253–54 (10th Cir. 2016).12 The Eleventh Circuit applied the factors in a......
  • State v. Sawyer
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • March 24, 2020
    ...manner by the photographer, implicating two additional Dost factors, namely, the fifth and sixth factors. See, e.g., United States v. Overton , 573 F.3d 679, 687 (9th Cir.) ("The hair in the child's face and arms partially covering her breasts suggests sexual coyness or reluctance. The vict......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Sentencing
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...482 (8th Cir. 1992) (court properly articulated reasons for 144-month sentence when Guidelines range spanned 33 months); U.S. v. Overton, 573 F.3d 679, 699-700 (9th Cir. 2009) (court properly articulated reasons for 235-month sentence when Guidelines range spanned 47 months); U.S. v. Bonill......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT