U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 71— OBSCENITY

18 U.S.C. § 1466A

Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and(B) is obscene; or(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.(b)Additional Offenses.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and(B) is obscene; or(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(2), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.(c)Nonrequired Element of Offense.—It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.(d)Circumstances.—The circumstance referred to in subsections (a) and (b) is that—(1) any communication involved in or made in furtherance of the offense is communicated or transported by the mail, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or any means or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce is otherwise used in committing or in furtherance of the commission of the offense;(2) any communication involved in or made in furtherance of the offense contemplates the transmission or transportation of a visual depiction by the mail, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer;(3) any person travels or is transported in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of the commission or in furtherance of the commission of the offense;(4) any visual depiction involved in the offense has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or was produced using materials that have been mailed, or that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; or(5) the offense is committed in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in any territory or possession of the United States.(e)Affirmative Defense.—It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (b) that the defendant—(1) possessed less than 3 such visual depictions; and(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any such visual depiction—(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction; or(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction.(f)Definitions.—For purposes of this section—(1) the term “visual depiction” includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on a computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image, and also includes any photograph, film, video, picture, digital image or picture, computer image or picture, or computer generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means;(2) the term “sexually explicit conduct” has the meaning given the term in section 2256(2)(A) or 2256(2)(B); and(3) the term “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted.(Added Pub. L. 108–21, title V, § 504(a), Apr. 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 680.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesSentencing Guidelines

Pub. L. 108–21, title V, § 504(c), Apr. 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 682, provided that:“(1)Category.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the applicable category of offense to be used in determining the sentencing range referred to in section 3553(a)(4) of title 18, United States Code, with respect to any person convicted under section 1466A of such title, shall be the category of offenses described in section 2G2.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines.“(2)Ranges.—The Sentencing Commission may promulgate guidelines specifically governing offenses under section 1466A of title 18, United States Code, if such guidelines do not result in sentencing ranges that are lower than those that would have applied under paragraph (1).”

Report to Congressional Committees

Pub. L. 108–21, title V, § 513(b), Apr. 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 685, provided that:“(1)In general.—Not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act [Apr. 30, 2003], and every 2 years thereafter, the Attorney General shall report to the Chairpersons and Ranking Members of the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the Federal enforcement actions under chapter 110 or section 1466A of title 18, United States Code.“(2)Contents.—The report required under paragraph (1) shall include—“(A) an evaluation of the prosecutions brought under chapter 110 or section 1466A of title 18, United States Code;“(B) an outcome-based measurement of performance; and“(C) an analysis of the technology being used by the child pornography industry.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 81 cases (26 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: United States v. Whorley
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Whorley (2008) ca4 · cites it 24× “See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466A(a), 2252A(b)(1). Thus, the 240-month sentence imposed by the district court was an increase of 33% above the Guideline sentence of 180 months' imprisonment.”
United States v. Schales (2008) ca9 · cites it 21× “knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that .”
United States v. Bowersox (2013) armfor · cites it 30× “First, Appellant claims that the application of § 1466A(b)(1) to his case is unconstitutional because the statute requires that a real minor be depicted and no real 4 The scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A is limited by subsection (b) to “[a]ny person .”
United States v. John Farrar (2017) ca5 · cites it 9× “Amendment on two bases: it is grossly disproportionate to his crime as applied; and, a ten-year minimum for repeat-offenders in possession of obscene material is categorically disproportionate.”
United States v. Williams (2008) scotus · cites it 2× “One would think that this principle resolves the present case, since the statute criminalizes only offers to provide or requests to obtain contraband—child obscenity and child pornography involving actual children, both of which are proscribed, see 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a), §…”
United States v. Handley (2008) iasd · cites it 17× “On May 5, 2008, Defendant filed this motion to dismiss, arguing the statute upon which the indictment is based violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution and that the facts alleged do not support an indictment for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466A,…”
United States v. Dean (2011) ca11 · cites it 6× “18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a). We note that the statute prohibits specific sexual acts, and that it incorporates only one of the three Miller prongs — i.”
United States v. Goluba (2012) ca5 · cites it 6× “2 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines applies to the child pornography offenses set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466A, 2252, 2252(A)(a)-(b), and 2260(b).”
United States v. Reingold (2013) ca2 · cites it 2× “2 applies to defendants convicted of the myriad offenses proscribed by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466A, 2251(d)(1)(A), 2252, 2252A(a) and (b), and 2260(b).”
United States v. Jason M. Moriarty (2005) ca11 · cites it 3× “10 Although a guilty *1024 plea to violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a) subjects the offender to “the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1),” a lifelong term of supervised release is not a penalty-provided in § 2252A(b)(1).”
United States v. Erik Jenkins (2013) ca5 · cites it 2× “§ 2252 (a)(4)(B); one count of receiving obscene material depicting sexual abuse of a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(l); and one count of possessing obscene material depicting sexual abuse of a child in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Thielemann (2009) ca3 · cites it 2× “§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) & *269 (b)(2); Counts Thirteen through Seventeen, receipt/distribution of obscenity depicting children in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466A(a)(2)(A) & (B), and 2252A(b)(l); and Count Eighteen, possession of obscenity depicting children in violation of 18 U.”
Show all 81 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a) — 15 cases
United States v. Williams (2008) scotus “One would think that this principle resolves the present case, since the statute criminalizes only offers to provide or requests to obtain contraband—child obscenity and child pornography involving actual children, both of which are proscribed, see 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a), §…”
United States v. Whorley (2008) ca4 “See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466A(a), 2252A(b)(1). Thus, the 240-month sentence imposed by the district court was an increase of 33% above the Guideline sentence of 180 months' imprisonment.”
United States v. Handley (2008) iasd “On May 5, 2008, Defendant filed this motion to dismiss, arguing the statute upon which the indictment is based violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution and that the facts alleged do not support an indictment for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466A,…”
United States v. Finch (2014) armfor
United States v. Williams (2006) ca11
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(1) — 16 cases
United States v. Whorley (2008) ca4 “See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466A(a), 2252A(b)(1). Thus, the 240-month sentence imposed by the district court was an increase of 33% above the Guideline sentence of 180 months' imprisonment.”
United States v. Arthur (2022) ca5
United States v. Jason M. Moriarty (2005) ca11 “10 Although a guilty *1024 plea to violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a) subjects the offender to “the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1),” a lifelong term of supervised release is not a penalty-provided in § 2252A(b)(1).”
United States v. David Guy (2017) ca6
United States v. Flaming (2025) ca10
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(1)(A) — 2 cases
United States v. Whorley (2009) ca4
People v. Lewis (2026) nyappdiv
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(1)(B) — 1 case
United States v. Whorley (2008) ca4 “See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466A(a), 2252A(b)(1). Thus, the 240-month sentence imposed by the district court was an increase of 33% above the Guideline sentence of 180 months' imprisonment.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(2) — 3 cases
United States v. Dean (2011) ca11 “18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a). We note that the statute prohibits specific sexual acts, and that it incorporates only one of the three Miller prongs — i.”
United States v. Whorley (2008) ca4 “See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466A(a), 2252A(b)(1). Thus, the 240-month sentence imposed by the district court was an increase of 33% above the Guideline sentence of 180 months' imprisonment.”
United States v. Dean (2009) almd
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(2)(A) — 2 cases
United States v. Thielemann (2009) ca3 “§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) & *269 (b)(2); Counts Thirteen through Seventeen, receipt/distribution of obscenity depicting children in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466A(a)(2)(A) & (B), and 2252A(b)(l); and Count Eighteen, possession of obscenity depicting children in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Dean (2011) ca11 “18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a). We note that the statute prohibits specific sexual acts, and that it incorporates only one of the three Miller prongs — i.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(2)(B) — 2 cases
United States v. Dean (2011) ca11 “18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a). We note that the statute prohibits specific sexual acts, and that it incorporates only one of the three Miller prongs — i.”
United States v. Dean (2009) almd
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(l) — 8 cases
United States v. Schales (2008) ca9 “knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that .”
United States v. Whorley (2008) ca4 “See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466A(a), 2252A(b)(1). Thus, the 240-month sentence imposed by the district court was an increase of 33% above the Guideline sentence of 180 months' imprisonment.”
United States v. Erik Jenkins (2013) ca5 “§ 2252 (a)(4)(B); one count of receiving obscene material depicting sexual abuse of a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(l); and one count of possessing obscene material depicting sexual abuse of a child in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Danny Teague (2013) ca9
United States v. Handley (2008) iasd “On May 5, 2008, Defendant filed this motion to dismiss, arguing the statute upon which the indictment is based violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution and that the facts alleged do not support an indictment for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466A,…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(l)(B) — 1 case
United States v. Whorley (2008) ca4 “See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466A(a), 2252A(b)(1). Thus, the 240-month sentence imposed by the district court was an increase of 33% above the Guideline sentence of 180 months' imprisonment.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b) — 13 cases
United States v. Bowersox (2013) armfor “First, Appellant claims that the application of § 1466A(b)(1) to his case is unconstitutional because the statute requires that a real minor be depicted and no real 4 The scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A is limited by subsection (b) to “[a]ny person .”
United States v. Henderson (2011) ca9
United States v. Handley (2008) iasd “On May 5, 2008, Defendant filed this motion to dismiss, arguing the statute upon which the indictment is based violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution and that the facts alleged do not support an indictment for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466A,…”
United States v. Andrew Demma (2020) ca6
United States v. Goluba (2012) ca5 “2 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines applies to the child pornography offenses set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466A, 2252, 2252(A)(a)-(b), and 2260(b).”
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1) — 15 cases
United States v. John Farrar (2017) ca5 “Amendment on two bases: it is grossly disproportionate to his crime as applied; and, a ten-year minimum for repeat-offenders in possession of obscene material is categorically disproportionate.”
United States v. Bowersox (2013) armfor “First, Appellant claims that the application of § 1466A(b)(1) to his case is unconstitutional because the statute requires that a real minor be depicted and no real 4 The scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A is limited by subsection (b) to “[a]ny person .”
United States v. David Buie (2019) ca8
United States v. Specialist RYAN A. BOWERSOX (2012) acca
United States v. Matthew Ostrander (2024) ca11
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1)(2006) — 1 case
United States v. Sergeant DONALD E. GRAVES (2013) acca
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1)(A) — 2 cases
United States v. Bowersox (2013) armfor “First, Appellant claims that the application of § 1466A(b)(1) to his case is unconstitutional because the statute requires that a real minor be depicted and no real 4 The scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A is limited by subsection (b) to “[a]ny person .”
United States v. Bowersox (2013) armfor
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1)(B) — 1 case
United States v. Matthew Ostrander (2024) ca11
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(2)(A) — 2 cases
United States v. Thielemann (2009) ca3 “§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) & *269 (b)(2); Counts Thirteen through Seventeen, receipt/distribution of obscenity depicting children in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466A(a)(2)(A) & (B), and 2252A(b)(l); and Count Eighteen, possession of obscenity depicting children in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. LaBella (2014) afcca
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(l) — 4 cases
United States v. Bowersox (2013) armfor “First, Appellant claims that the application of § 1466A(b)(1) to his case is unconstitutional because the statute requires that a real minor be depicted and no real 4 The scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A is limited by subsection (b) to “[a]ny person .”
United States v. Erik Jenkins (2013) ca5 “§ 2252 (a)(4)(B); one count of receiving obscene material depicting sexual abuse of a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(l); and one count of possessing obscene material depicting sexual abuse of a child in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Specialist RYAN A. BOWERSOX (2012) acca
United States v. Koegel (2011) vaed
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(l)(A) — 1 case
United States v. Bowersox (2013) armfor “First, Appellant claims that the application of § 1466A(b)(1) to his case is unconstitutional because the statute requires that a real minor be depicted and no real 4 The scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A is limited by subsection (b) to “[a]ny person .”
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(l)(B) — 1 case
United States v. Bowersox (2013) armfor “First, Appellant claims that the application of § 1466A(b)(1) to his case is unconstitutional because the statute requires that a real minor be depicted and no real 4 The scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A is limited by subsection (b) to “[a]ny person .”
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(c) — 7 cases
United States v. Whorley (2008) ca4 “See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466A(a), 2252A(b)(1). Thus, the 240-month sentence imposed by the district court was an increase of 33% above the Guideline sentence of 180 months' imprisonment.”
United States v. Schales (2008) ca9 “knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that .”
United States v. Bowersox (2013) armfor “First, Appellant claims that the application of § 1466A(b)(1) to his case is unconstitutional because the statute requires that a real minor be depicted and no real 4 The scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A is limited by subsection (b) to “[a]ny person .”
United States v. Bowersox (2013) armfor
United States v. Schales (2008) ca9
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(d) — 1 case
United States v. Jesse Perez (2025) ca4
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(d)(5) — 3 cases
United States v. Bowersox (2013) armfor “First, Appellant claims that the application of § 1466A(b)(1) to his case is unconstitutional because the statute requires that a real minor be depicted and no real 4 The scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A is limited by subsection (b) to “[a]ny person .”
United States v. Jesse Perez (2025) ca4
United States v. Bowersox (2013) armfor
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(e) — 2 cases
United States v. Handley (2008) iasd “On May 5, 2008, Defendant filed this motion to dismiss, arguing the statute upon which the indictment is based violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution and that the facts alleged do not support an indictment for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466A,…”
United States v. Dean (2009) almd
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(f) — 1 case
United States v. Eychaner (2018) vaed
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(f)(1) — 2 cases
United States v. Bowersox (2013) armfor “First, Appellant claims that the application of § 1466A(b)(1) to his case is unconstitutional because the statute requires that a real minor be depicted and no real 4 The scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A is limited by subsection (b) to “[a]ny person .”
United States v. Bowersox (2013) armfor
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(f)(2) — 2 cases
United States v. Koegel (2011) vaed
United States v. Charles Hillie (EN BANC ORDER IN SLIP OPINION FORMAT) (2022) cadc
— 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(f)(l) — 1 case
United States v. Bowersox (2013) armfor “First, Appellant claims that the application of § 1466A(b)(1) to his case is unconstitutional because the statute requires that a real minor be depicted and no real 4 The scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A is limited by subsection (b) to “[a]ny person .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.