United States v. Lee: The Tenth Circuit Establishes Broad Venue for § 2252 “Receipt” Offenses as Continuing Crimes

Introduction

In United States v. Lee, No. 24-7015 (10th Cir. June 30 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit considered an appeal arising from a multi-count conviction that included assault with a firearm, cyberstalking, and child-exploitation offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 2252. The defendant, Geovanta Ty'kearon Lee, challenged the judgment on venue, sufficiency of evidence, and sentencing grounds. Most notably, the panel (Hartz, Phillips & Moritz, JJ.) broke new ground in Tenth Circuit jurisprudence by holding—for the first time—that a “receipt” charge under § 2252 is a continuing offense that may be prosecuted in any district through or into which the prohibited material moves, even if the defendant’s act of receiving occurred elsewhere.

The decision therefore solidifies a broad venue doctrine for child pornography receipt cases within the Tenth Circuit and aligns it with the First and Ninth Circuits. The court also reaffirmed the objective approach to proving “intent to do bodily harm” under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3), clarified the application of the five-level “pattern of activity” enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5), and endorsed a deferential view of within-Guidelines sentences for child-exploitation defendants.

Summary of the Judgment

Venue: Venue for the § 2252 “receipt” count was proper in the Eastern District of Oklahoma because the visual depiction moved “into” that district, making it a continuing offense under 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a).
Sufficiency of the Evidence: The panel upheld convictions for (a) possession of child-exploitation material, (b) assault with a dangerous weapon, and (c) cyberstalking, finding ample circumstantial evidence for each.
Sentencing: The district court correctly imposed the § 2G2.2(b)(5) five-level enhancement based on Lee’s repeated jail- call enticement of a minor, and the resulting 255-month sentence was substantively reasonable.

Analysis

I. Precedents Cited

The panel relied on, distinguished, or harmonised several strands of authority:

United States v. Cameron, 699 F.3d 621 (1st Cir. 2012) — held that § 2252 “receipt” is a continuing offense; used as primary out-of-circuit support for the venue holding.
United States v. Moncini, 882 F.2d 401 (9th Cir. 1989) and United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996) — recognized similar interstate-commerce logic for obscenity and child pornography statutes; cited to show nationwide consensus.
Shaffer v. United States, 308 F.2d 654 (5th Cir. 1962) — provided the objective framework for inferring “intent to do bodily harm” in assault cases; adopted de facto in the Tenth Circuit.
United States v. Haymond, 672 F.3d 948 (10th Cir. 2012) and United States v. Culpepper, 834 F.2d 879 (10th Cir. 1987) — articulated the standards for knowing and constructive possession of contraband, applied to the possession count.
United States v. McDonald, 43 F.4th 1090 (10th Cir. 2022) — guided review of sentencing enhancements; cited for standard of review.

II. Legal Reasoning

1. Venue for § 2252 Receipt Offenses

The constitutional and statutory venue requirements center on where the “offense was committed.” The court began with the text of § 2252 and the commerce element that inherently spans jurisdictions. It then invoked 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a), which expressly allows prosecution of continuing offenses “in any district from, through, or into which” the contraband moves.

Because investigators discovered the illicit video on a phone in Lee’s Ardmore, Oklahoma bedroom, the depiction had undeniably moved into the Eastern District—even if Lee received it while physically outside the district. The panel adopted Cameron’s analysis, concluding that “receipt” continues so long as the depiction is possessed or transported. This created binding circuit authority on a previously open question.

2. Sufficiency of the Evidence

a) Possession Count. The court underscored that constructive possession may be proved by dominion, control, and incriminating statements. Testimony tying Lee to the phone, his text threats to post the video, and jail calls expressly acknowledging the device supplied ample evidence of knowledge and control.

b) Assault Count. Borrowing Shaffer’s objective standard, the panel found that an armed approach, window-striking, and firing into an occupied vehicle would lead a reasonable victim to conclude Lee intended bodily harm, satisfying § 113(a)(3).

c) Cyberstalking Count. The repeated, caller-ID-blocked late-night calls and explicit threats to post intimate videos constituted a “course of conduct” reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2).

3. Sentencing Decisions

The five-level “pattern of activity” enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5) can arise from “enticement” that violates 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). Lee’s jail-call requests that his minor girlfriend expose her genitals on live video squarely fit that definition, even though no new recordings were seized. Because the enhancement moved his Guidelines range to 135–168 months (before the mandatory 120-month firearm count), the court imposed the low-end 255-month aggregate sentence. Under Chavez, the within-Guidelines sentence enjoys a presumption of reasonableness—a presumption Lee failed to rebut.

III. Impact of the Decision

Venue Doctrine: District courts within the Tenth Circuit may now entertain § 2252 “receipt” cases whenever the prohibited material is later found or possessed in the district, regardless of where the initial download or transfer occurred.
Prosecutorial Flexibility: Federal prosecutors gain broader choice of forum, which may facilitate multi-district or reservation-based investigations involving mobile devices and cloud-stored media.
Defense Strategy: Defendants must now overcome a heavier burden to argue improper venue in child-exploitation cases, likely shifting the litigation focus to suppression and substantive challenges.
Sentencing Guidance: The ruling confirms that live video enticement, even without permanent storage, triggers the § 2G2.2(b)(5) enhancement and that concurrent statutory-maximum counts will not upset a sentence driven by the Guidelines’ primary count plus § 924(c).
Assault Jurisprudence: By implicitly adopting the Fifth Circuit’s Shaffer objectivity test, the Tenth Circuit simplifies proof of “intent to do bodily harm” in Indian-Country assault prosecutions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Continuing Offense: An offense that, by its nature, may occur over several districts or times, allowing venue wherever any part of the crime happened (e.g., transporting or storing contraband after receipt).
Constructive Possession: Legal control over contraband without physical custody; demonstrated by access, statements, or exclusive dominion over the area where the item is found.
Pattern-of-Activity Enhancement (§ 2G2.2(b)(5)): A five-level increase when a defendant has two or more separate occasions of sexually abusing or exploiting a minor, including live streaming or enticement, whether or not they result in convictions.
Cyberstalking (18 U.S.C. § 2261A): A felony that requires (i) a course of conduct using electronic means, (ii) intent to harm or harass, and (iii) conduct that causes or is expected to cause substantial emotional distress.

Conclusion

United States v. Lee delivers a quartet of substantive holdings, but its chief contribution is the clear articulation that § 2252 “receipt” is a continuing offense, thereby broadening venue for child-exploitation prosecutions within the Tenth Circuit. Coupled with reaffirmations of objective-intent analysis for violent assaults and expansive application of Guidelines enhancements for sexual exploitation, the decision strengthens prosecutorial tools and signals the circuit’s intolerance for technologically facilitated offenses against minors. Future litigants must now calibrate venue, sufficiency, and sentencing arguments in light of this precedent, which is poised to influence Indian-Country and multi-district prosecutions alike.