knowingly transported child pornography in interstate commerce. Contrary to Genao’s belief, the fact that he was not physically sitting in front of his computer and directly interacting with the undercover agent who downloaded these files from his server does not relieve him of responsibility under Section 2252A. We also find no merit to each of Genao’s arguments purportedly supporting dismissal of the indictment. We further reject Genao’s argument that the evidence seized from his home and computer should have been suppressed. With regard to the downloading of files from Genao’s servers by the undercover agent, this did not constitute a warrantless search and seizure because Genao made these files available to the public. See United States v. Fields, 113 F.3d 313, 321 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). We have reviewed each of the purported
holding that where an individual voluntarily goes to the police station to discuss the commission of a crime that person has not been seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment holding seizure of evidence in plain view reasonable under fourth amendment recognizing that a person has been seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment only if in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave holding that what a person chooses voluntarily to ex pose to public view thereby loses its fourth amendment protection holding that the observation of evidence in plain view is not a search for purposes of the fourth amendment and does not require a warrant