United States v. Blanc: Auto-Download Defense Rejected Where Knowledge Is Shown; 404(b) Prior Enticement Evidence Admissible; No Plain Error in Treating Each Video as 75 Images

Introduction

In this unpublished per curiam decision, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence of Ynddy Blanc for transporting and possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1) and § 2252(a)(4)(B). The case presents three focal points:

Evidentiary rulings admitting (i) prior attempted child-enticement conduct under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove knowledge, motive, and absence of mistake, and (ii) short clips of child pornography over a Rule 403 objection despite a defense stipulation.
The sufficiency of evidence on the knowledge element where the materials were automatically downloaded to the defendant’s phone via WhatsApp.
A sentencing question under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(7): whether the district court plainly erred by relying on guideline commentary that counts each video as the equivalent of 75 images in light of Kisor v. Wilkie and Eleventh Circuit en banc precedent in Dupree.

The opinion, while non-precedential, synthesizes existing Eleventh Circuit and out-of-circuit authority to uphold the government’s use of prior enticement evidence to rebut a “lack of knowledge” defense in a child pornography case, endorses the careful use of limited clips to prove the government’s case notwithstanding a stipulation, and maintains—under plain-error review—the longstanding Sentencing Commission commentary that equates one video to 75 still images when applying the § 2G2.2 image table.

Summary of the Opinion

Rule 404(b) Evidence: The court affirmed admission of Mr. Blanc’s April 2021 online communications with an undercover officer posing as a 14-year-old and his travel to meet the fictitious minor. This evidence was admitted not to show propensity but to prove knowledge, motive, and absence of mistake regarding the child pornography later found on his phone. The court emphasized careful Rule 403 balancing and repeated limiting instructions to the jury.
Rule 403 and Video Clips: Over defense stipulation, the court allowed the government to play a handful of brief (<30 seconds total) video clips from the seized files. Citing Old Chief’s principle that the prosecution may tell its evidentiary story and Eleventh Circuit precedent allowing limited images to show knowledge, the court found no abuse of discretion.
Sufficiency of the Evidence (Knowledge): Even though WhatsApp’s default setting auto-saved received media, the court held that a rational jury could infer knowledge from circumstantial evidence: Mr. Blanc’s membership in relevant WhatsApp groups (including one with a title referencing sexual abuse of children), his admissions that he had viewed “kids porn” videos and not deleted them, evidence he opened chats after pornographic videos were received, and his recent attempted enticement conduct.
Sentencing—Image Count: Applying plain-error review because there was no objection below, the court upheld the five-level enhancement under § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D) by relying on commentary providing a 75:1 video-to-image ratio. Given the absence of controlling Supreme Court or Eleventh Circuit precedent and a recognized circuit split, any potential error was not “plain.”
Disposition: Convictions and sentence affirmed; motion for a stay denied.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and How They Shaped the Outcome

United States v. Little (11th Cir. 2017): Provided elements for § 2252(a)(1) (transportation) and framed the requirement that the government prove knowledge.
United States v. Mapson (11th Cir. 2024): Articulated the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard—de novo review, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and allowing the jury to choose among reasonable inferences.
United States v. Pruitt (11th Cir. 2011): Reinforced that inadvertent receipt is not enough; knowledge may be established through circumstantial proof in child pornography receipt cases.
Staples v. United States (U.S. 1994): Confirmed knowledge may be inferred from circumstantial evidence.
United States v. Dobbs (10th Cir. 2011): Distinguished by the panel; in Dobbs, images were only in a browser cache with no evidence the defendant knew of or accessed them. In contrast, Blanc’s admissions and activity supported a knowledge finding.
Rule 404(b) authorities:
- United States v. Ellisor (11th Cir. 2008): 404(b) is a rule of inclusion; extrinsic evidence admissible if offered for a permissible purpose and passes Rule 403 balancing.
- United States v. Nerey (11th Cir. 2017) and United States v. Cenephat (11th Cir. 2024): Articulated the admissibility test (relevance to non-propensity issue, sufficient proof of the act, probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice).
- United States v. Kapordelis (11th Cir. 2009): Approved using prior sexual conduct with minors to rebut claims of mistake or lack of knowledge in child-pornography prosecutions.
- United States v. Hill (11th Cir. 2011): Motive is always relevant; 404(b) encompasses this use.
- United States v. Sebolt (7th Cir. 2006): Prior sexual misconduct can show sexual interest in children, bearing on motive/intent in child exploitation cases.
Rule 403 and limiting-instruction cases:
- United States v. McGregor (11th Cir. 2020): Rule 403 exclusion is an “extraordinary remedy.”
- United States v. Fortenberry (11th Cir. 1992) and United States v. Wilchcombe (11th Cir. 2016): Limiting instructions mitigate unfair prejudice.
Old Chief v. United States (U.S. 1997): While warning against needless prejudice in certain stipulation contexts, Old Chief recognizes the prosecution’s right to present a coherent narrative. The court relied on this principle to permit brief clips notwithstanding a defense stipulation.
United States v. Alfaro-Moncada (11th Cir. 2010): Upheld admission of a small number of images from DVDs to prove the content and the defendant’s knowledge, even in the face of a stipulation.
Sentencing and deference to guideline commentary:
- Kisor v. Wilkie (U.S. 2019): Deference to agency interpretations applies only if the text is genuinely ambiguous after exhausting traditional tools of construction.
- United States v. Dupree (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc): Applied Kisor to the Sentencing Guidelines; commentary cannot expand unambiguous guideline text.
- United States v. Phillips (6th Cir. 2022): Found § 2G2.2(b)(7) ambiguous and deferred to the 75:1 commentary.
- United States v. Haggerty (3d Cir. 2024): Held “image” unambiguously means “frame,” rejecting deference to the 75:1 commentary; nevertheless rejected the notion that “one video equals one image.”
- Plain-error authorities: Rosales-Mireles v. United States (U.S. 2018); Johnson v. United States (U.S. 1997); United States v. Hesser (11th Cir. 2015); United States v. Corbett (11th Cir. 2019).

Legal Reasoning

1) Rule 404(b): Prior Attempted Enticement as Proof of Knowledge, Motive, and Absence of Mistake

Mr. Blanc’s core trial defense was that he did not know child pornography was stored on his phone because WhatsApp automatically saved incoming media. The district court admitted, over objection, evidence of his April 2021 online communications with a person he believed to be a 14-year-old and his travel to meet that fictitious minor for sex.

Applying 404(b)’s rule of inclusion and abuse-of-discretion review, the panel agreed the evidence was relevant to non-propensity issues—knowledge, motive, and absence of mistake. The court reasoned:

Sexual interest in minors supported an inference that he knowingly joined or remained in WhatsApp groups where child pornography was exchanged and knowingly possessed the material. This is consistent with Kapordelis, which permitted prior sexual acts with minors to rebut knowledge/identity/mistake defenses, and with Hill/Sebolt recognizing motive as a proper 404(b) purpose.
The evidence countered his claim that the videos appeared by accident and without his awareness.
Contextual overlap mattered: one seized video depicted abuse involving multiple participants, which echoed his prior inquiry to the purported minor about threesomes—further linking the extrinsic conduct to knowledge and intent in the charged offenses.

The court then engaged in Rule 403 balancing. Acknowledging the prejudice inherent in 404(b) evidence and calling it a close question, the panel emphasized:

Deferential review and the centrality of knowledge in this trial tipped the scale toward admission.
Repeated limiting instructions at admission, at the close of evidence, and during closing arguments confined the jury’s use of 404(b) evidence to state of mind, knowledge, and absence of mistake—mitigating unfair prejudice (Ellisor; Fortenberry; Wilchcombe).

2) Rule 403 and the Government’s Use of Short Video Clips

Despite a defense stipulation that the files were child pornography (and a concession that any viewer would recognize them as such), the district court allowed the government to present four brief clips totaling under 30 seconds. The Eleventh Circuit held there was no abuse of discretion:

Old Chief permits the prosecution to present a coherent narrative and not be forced to accept a stipulation that would reduce the case to abstractions.
Alfaro-Moncada specifically approved showing a small number of images to establish both content and the defendant’s knowledge, even where stipulations existed. Here, the limited duration and number of clips mitigated any risk of undue prejudice under Rule 403.

3) Sufficiency of the Evidence on Knowledge

The panel reviewed de novo whether any rational juror could find knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt, taking the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict (Mapson). It concluded that knowledge was amply supported:

Group participation: The phone contained 72 WhatsApp groups; five had child pornography. While CP constituted a small fraction of overall downloads, Mr. Blanc was a member of groups that exchanged such material, including one with a Creole title referencing sexual abuse of children.
Admissions: He told agents he had seen “kids porn” in his groups, described one video from memory, and referenced a video involving a 10-year-old.
Storage awareness: He knew WhatsApp auto-saved received media to the camera roll and a dedicated folder and acknowledged he did not delete the videos after seeing them.
Device activity: Forensic evidence showed he opened chats after the pornographic videos had arrived (even though the tool could not prove whether he played the videos); this supported the inference of awareness and control.
Prior enticement conduct: His recent attempt to meet a purported 14-year-old for sex further reinforced knowledge and intent (Pruitt).

The court distinguished Dobbs, where images resided only in an internet cache and there was no evidence the defendant knew of or accessed them. By contrast, Blanc’s admissions, group activity, and file retention easily justified the jury’s knowledge finding despite the auto-download setting.

4) Sentencing: No Plain Error in Applying the 75:1 Video-to-Image Commentary

The district court imposed a five-level enhancement under § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D) for 600+ images based on 14 videos (14 x 75 = 1,050 images). On appeal, Mr. Blanc—who did not object below—argued that Kisor and Dupree preclude deference to commentary because the guideline’s “image” text is unambiguous and a “video equals one image.” The panel applied plain-error review and affirmed:

Textual ambiguity: The guideline’s image table, added by the PROTECT Act, does not define “images” or specify how to count videos. The Sentencing Commission, after study, adopted the 75:1 ratio in commentary to avoid skewed results from either counting a video as a single image or counting every frame.
No controlling precedent: The Eleventh Circuit has no published decision resolving this precise issue, and there is a circuit split—Sixth Circuit (Phillips) defers to the commentary; Third Circuit (Haggerty) reads “image” to mean “frame,” which rejects deference but still does not adopt the defense’s “one video equals one image” approach.
Given this unsettled landscape, any alleged error was not “clear or obvious” at the time of appeal; thus, no plain error (Johnson; Hesser; Rosales-Mireles).

Importantly, the panel noted that even the circuits rejecting the 75:1 ratio have not embraced the defense position here. Under Haggerty’s frame-based approach, counting frames could drastically exceed the 75:1 ratio, though the enhancement would still cap at +5 levels under the image table (with any further effect typically appearing through departures or variances).

Impact

A. Evidentiary Practice in Digital-Platform Child Pornography Cases

Auto-download features do not defeat the knowledge element if other evidence (admissions, viewing behavior, group participation, retention without deletion) supports awareness and control. Defense strategies premised solely on automated storage, without rebutting knowledge indicators, are unlikely to prevail.
Rule 404(b) evidence of prior sexual conduct involving minors—even if not child pornography—remains admissible to prove knowledge, motive, and absence of mistake where the defendant claims ignorance of the files. Limiting instructions and careful Rule 403 balancing are essential, and courts may view such issues as “close,” but knowledge-centered defenses can open the door to this evidence.
Prosecutors may introduce a small number of brief clips or stills to tell a coherent story and prove knowledge even when the defense stipulates to content. Careful tailoring—short duration, limited number—will help survive Rule 403 challenges.

B. Sufficiency Standards and Forensic Proving Grounds

Opening chats, being an active group member at the time of receipt, and knowing that the app saves to accessible folders can suffice to infer knowledge even if forensic tools cannot prove the exact moment a video was played.
Law enforcement’s use of metadata and extraction tools (e.g., Cellebrite) remains pivotal. Even with technical limits, file paths, timestamps, group names, and user settings can bridge gaps in direct proof of viewing.

C. Sentencing: Preserving Kisor/Dupree Arguments and Navigating the Circuit Split

Preservation matters. In the Eleventh Circuit, absent a contemporaneous objection, challenges to § 2G2.2 commentary will face the high bar of plain-error review while the law remains unsettled.
The split between Phillips (6th Cir.) and Haggerty (3d Cir.) suggests potential future en banc or Supreme Court attention. Defense counsel should preserve objections to the 75:1 ratio, but also weigh the strategic implications: a “frame-based” counting theory can be harsher than the commentary’s 75:1 ratio.
Even where the 75:1 ratio is questioned, neither Phillips nor Haggerty endorses the theory that one video equals one image. Counsel should calibrate sentencing arguments accordingly.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 404(b): Generally bars “propensity” evidence (i.e., “once a wrongdoer, always a wrongdoer”) but allows other-acts evidence to prove things like knowledge, motive, intent, identity, or absence of mistake—provided the probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
Rule 403: A balancing test. Even relevant evidence can be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Courts often mitigate potential prejudice with limiting instructions to the jury.
Knowledge in Child Pornography Offenses: The government must prove the defendant knew the material was child pornography and that he possessed or transported it. Knowledge can be inferred from circumstantial evidence (admissions, behavior, settings, metadata, group names, file retention).
Old Chief Principle: While stipulations can narrow issues, the prosecution typically retains the right to present a coherent narrative of the crime; it need not accept stipulations that would hollow out the story of the case, subject to Rule 403 limits.
Plain Error: An appellate standard applying when a party failed to object below. The appellant must show a clear or obvious error affecting substantial rights and seriously affecting the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
Kisor/Dupree and Guideline Commentary: Commentary receives deference only if the guideline text is genuinely ambiguous after using traditional interpretive tools. If unambiguous, commentary cannot effectively rewrite the guideline.
§ 2G2.2 Image Table: Enhances offense levels based on the number of “images.” The commentary equivalency (one video equals 75 images) is designed to approximate severity without counting each frame. With a circuit split and no Eleventh Circuit published decision squarely on point, district courts in this Circuit frequently continue applying the commentary absent objection.
WhatsApp Auto-Download: By default, WhatsApp can automatically save received media to a device’s camera roll and a dedicated folder. Knowing and not disabling that feature—and not deleting illicit media—can help prove “knowing possession.”

Conclusion

United States v. Blanc reinforces three practical and doctrinal points in the Eleventh Circuit (albeit in a non-precedential decision). First, a defendant’s “auto-download” defense to child pornography possession and transportation will fail where circumstantial evidence establishes knowledge—particularly admissions of viewing, membership in groups trafficking such content, and retention without deletion. Second, prior attempted enticement of a minor is admissible under Rule 404(b) to establish knowledge, motive, and absence of mistake when the defendant claims ignorance; careful limiting instructions and Rule 403 balancing remain crucial. Third, in the absence of a preserved objection and controlling precedent, reliance on the § 2G2.2 commentary’s 75:1 video-to-image ratio is not plain error despite a circuit split under Kisor and Dupree.

For practitioners, the case underscores the importance of strategic evidentiary objections, the necessity of preserving sentencing arguments about guideline commentary, and the continued relevance of targeted government presentations—brief video clips or stills—to prove knowledge even over a stipulation. For courts, it illustrates the centrality of limiting instructions and measured Rule 403 analysis when admitting emotionally charged evidence. And for the broader law of digital-era child pornography prosecutions, it provides a cogent synthesis: automated device behavior does not negate human knowledge that can be inferred from surrounding facts.