to the evidence presented by the government in this case to determine whether it was sufficient to satisfy the requisite jurisdictional elements. With respect to the distribution charge, the government presented evidence testimony from FBI Agent Joseph Cecchini that one of the video images that formed the basis of the charge was made in Richland, Washington. In my view, this evidence was clearly sufficient to establish the requisite interstate nexus. That is, taking this evidence in the light most favorable to the government, with all reasonable inferences therefrom, a jury could conclude that an image created in the state of Washington necessarily crossed state lines before ultimately arriving on a computer in Oklahoma. See United States v. Schene, 543 F.3d 627, 639 (10th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). The same is true for the possession charge.
holding a car salesman who was obligated to go on a drive with assailants was particularly susceptible to criminal conduct holding that there was sufficient evidence to prove that a hard drive found in oklahoma was a material that had traveled in interstate or foreign commerce upon proof that the hard drive was manufactured in singapore holding that the fourth amendment was not implicated when an officer asked for passengers identification to see if he could drive a vehicle because the driver had a suspended license holding defendant who gave personal computers hard drive to technician to repair lacked sufficient dominion or control over the pornographic jpeg files when he asked technician to back them up holding that unlicensed driver who was driving vehicle with permission of owners permittee could reasonably believe that permittee had authority to permit him to drive vehicle and thus driv er was entitled to liability coverage notwithstanding auto policy exclusion for any person using a vehicle without a reasonable belief that person is entitled to do so driver could have reasonable belief that he was entitled to use vehicle even though he was unlicensed where he was doing so at specific request of permittee and actual owner never instructed driver not to drive vehicle nor instructed permittee not to allow others to drive vehicle