Cluster 768331 (2000)

Matthews, 209 F.3d at 344.

In X-Citement Video , the Court never “expressly h[e]ld that § 2252, as so construed [by the Court], passed constitutional muster.” Matthews, 209 F.3d at 351.

See, e.g., New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 757 , 102 S.Ct. 3348 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982) (“The prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse of children constitutes a government objective of surpassing importance.”); United States v. MacEwan, 445 F.3d 237, 249-50 (3d Cir.2006) (“The congressional findings underlying [18 U.S.C.] § 2251 repeatedly stress that child pornography is a form of sexual abuse which can result in physical or psychological harm, or both, to the childre…

An otherwise proper sentence is not a misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines simply because the district court, as a matter of discretion, refuses to impose a lesser sentence than the law authorizes, even if its factual reasons for doing so are mistaken. 25 Dewire, 271 F.3d at 338-39 (quotation, citations and note omitted). 26 The Fourth Circuit has also rejected an exception for alleged factual mistakes to the rule that "the only circumstance in which review is availab…

See United States v. Matthews, 209 F.3d 338 , 352 (4th Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Johnson, No. AW-11-552, 2012 WL 2317539 , at *5 (D.

See United States v. Matthews, 209 F.3d 338 , 342 (4th Cir.2000) (finding that "[t]he protection of children clearly constitutes a ‘public welfare’ interest justifying regulation of speech in certain circumstances,” including child pornography, and rejecting a journalist's First Amendment defense to transmission-of-child-pornography charges).

See United States v. Matthews, 209 F.3d 338 , 350-52 (4th Cir.2000) (ruling in child pornography case that criminalization of knowing conduct without proof of specific intent or willfulness does not violate due process); United States v. Blair, 54 F.3d 639, 641-42 (10th Cir.1995) (holding that a statute that prohibited “knowingly” using a wire communication facility to engage in the business of betting or wagering did not require proof of specific intent; Congress’ use of te…

See United States v. Matthews, 209 F.3d 338 , 350-52 (4th Cir.2000) (ruling in child pornography case that criminalization of knowing conduct without proof of specific intent or willfulness does not violate due process); United States v. Blair, 54 F.3d 639, 641-42 (10th Cir.1995) (holding that a statute that prohibited “knowingly” using a wire communication facility to engage in the business of betting or wagering did not require proof of specific intent; Congress’ use of te…

We The Fourth Circuit has also rejected cannot say it better than that Court said it: an exception for alleged factual mistakes to the rule that “the only circumstance in The reasoning in Sammoury which review is available is when the was based on a conflation of district court mistakenly believed that it 18 U.S.C. §§ 3742 (a)(2) and lacked the authority to depart.” United (e)(2), which authorize States v. Underwood, 970 F.2d 1336 , 1338 review of a sentence based (4th Cir. …

See United States v. Matthews, 209 F.3d 338 , 352-53 (4th Cir. 2000).

United States v. Fuller, 162 F.3d 256, 261 (4th Cir.1998); see United States v. Matthews, 209 F.3d 338 (4th Cir. 2000).

See United States v. Matthews, 209 F.3d 338 , 352-53 (4th Cir.2000).

See United States v. Matthews, 209 F.3d 338 , 352-53 (4th Cir.2000).

See United States v. Matthews, 209 F.3d 338 , 352-53 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 910 , 121 S.Ct. 260 , 148 L.Ed.2d 188 (2000).

See United States v. Matthews, 209 F.3d 338 , 352-53 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 910 , 121 S.Ct. 260 , 148 L.Ed.2d 188 (2000).

See United States v. Matthews, 209 F.3d 338 , 352 (4th Cir.2000). 12 .

See, e.g., United States v. Matthews, 209 F.3d 338 , 341 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000) (stating that defendants’ ability to raise his First Amendment defense to the jury rises and falls with his as-applied First Amendment challenge to the charge). 8 “Willfully,” on the other hand, “is sometimes said to be ‘a word of many meanings’ whose construction is often dependent on the context in which it appears.” Bryan, 524 U.S. at 191 (quoting Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 497 (1943))…

See United States v. Matthews, 209 F.3d 338 (4th Cir.2000)(investigative reporter receiving and distributing child pornography for news story). .

See United States v. Matthews, 209 F.3d 338 , 342 (4th Cir.2000) ("[T]he Constitution permits limitations on speech ... that constitutes no essential part of any exposition of ideas.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc., 128 F.3d 233, 249 (4th Cir.1997) (holding that aiding and assisting "speech” in the form of a "hit man” instruction book bore no resemblance to the "forms of discourse critical of the government, its policies, and its leade…

See Ebeling, supra. In United States v. Matthews, the defendant was charged in a federal district court with multiple violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2252 (a)(1), a provision which contains the “any visual depiction” language virtually identical to § 2252(a)(2), supra. 11 F.Supp.2d 656 (D.Md.1998), aff'd, 209 F.3d 338 (4th Cir.2000), ce rt. denied, 531 U.S. 910 , 121 S.Ct. 260 , 148 L.Ed.2d 188 (2000).