18 U.S.C. § 1470
Transfer of obscene material to minors
Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly transfers obscene matter to another individual who has not attained the age of 16 years, knowing that such other individual has not attained the age of 16 years, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 140
cases (30 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2010). “Dodge was indicted on three counts of transferring obscene material to a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1470 . 1 With no plea agreement, Dodge pleaded guilty to Count I, 2 which charged that between December 1-13, 2006, the then-thirty-three-year-old Dodge knowingly…”
United States v. Nicholas Schofield, 802 F.3d 722 (5th Cir. 2015). “On May 14, 2014, a grand jury indicted Schofield on one count of transfer of obscene material to a minor and four counts of attempted transfer of obscene material to a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1470 . 1 Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Schofield pleaded guilty to…”
United States v. Dodge, 554 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2009). “PER CURIAM: After pleading guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1470 , for transferring obscene material to a minor, 1 Matthew Mason Dodge (“Dodge”) appeals from the part of the district court’s judgment that requires him to register as a Tier I Sex Offender under the Sex…”
United States v. Wilfredo Lopez, 4 F.4th 706 (9th Cir. 2021). “§ 2422 (b)) and attempt to transfer obscenity to a minor under sixteen years of age ( 18 U.S.C. § 1470 ). Lopez, who served as a member of the U.”
United States v. Rudzavice, 586 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2009). “§ 2252 (a)(2) and one count of attempting to transfer obscene material to a minor under the age of 16 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1470 . On appeal, Rudzavice argues that: (1) the district court erred in refusing to acquit him of the charge of violating § 1470 because he did not…”
United States v. Spencer Salcedo, 924 F.3d 172 (5th Cir. 2019). “Salcedo appeals his conviction on the counts involving transfer of obscene material in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1470 , arguing both that the image at issue was not obscene and that he did not intend to transfer the image to any minor under the age of 16.”
United States v. Richards, 659 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 2011). “§ 2257 (f)(4); and one count of transferring obscene material to a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1470 . Pertinent to the present appeal, the district court denied Richards' pretrial motions to suppress the fruits of the searches and seizures of the computer servers; to…”
United States v. Steven Deason, 965 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2020). “Proving Obscenity Deason contends there was insufficient evidence to prove he was guilty of count seven, which charged him with attempted transfer of obscene matter to a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1470 , because the government did not put into evidence the entirety of the…”
United States v. Jayme Walker, 917 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 2019). “Following trial, a jury found him guilty on the remaining three counts: (1) 18 U.S.C. § 1470 , Transfer of Obscene Materials to a Minor; (2) 18 U.”
United States v. Gladish, 536 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2008). “A jury convicted the defendant of having violated two federal statutes: 18 U.S.C. § 1470 , which prohibits knowingly transferring or attempting to transfer obscene material to a person under 16, and 18 U.”
United States v. Crespo-Rios, 645 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2011). “Fernando Crespo-Ríos (“Crespo”) was charged with (1) transferring obscene material to a minor under the age of sixteen in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1470 and (2) possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Madera-Ortiz, 637 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2011). “Madera-Ortiz pleaded guilty to transferring obscene materials to a minor, see 18 U.S.C. § 1470 , the district court sentenced him to 21 months in prison.”
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.