United States District Court, E.D. California
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND JR., JUDGE
Superseding Indictment (ECF No. 41) charges Defendant Jesse
Davenport (“Defendant”) with the following: one
count of conspiracy to sexually exploit a child in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e); two counts of receipt of
child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
2252(a)(2); and one count of distribution of child
pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2).
Defendant, proceeding pro se, has filed a Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Jurisdiction. ECF No. 48. The United States of
America (“the Government”) timely filed an
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 51), and
Defendant timely filed a Reply (ECF No. 53). A hearing on the
Motion was held on August 20, 2015. For the reasons that
follow, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction is DENIED.
about June 17, 2012, Defendant was released from state prison
and placed on parole for a period of three years. On or about
September 5, 2013, Defendant met with his parole agent in
Chico, California. Defendant, in violation of the terms of
his parole, was in possession of an Internet-capable smart
phone. Defendant’s parole agent seized a micro-SD card
inside of the phone to search it for contraband pursuant to
Defendant’s parole conditions. Defendant also
thereafter removed his GPS monitoring device, which was
recovered in a trash bin outside of a convenience store.
Defendant was arrested on approximately September 12, 2013,
after which his parole agent searched the micro-SD card
his search of the micro-SD card, the parole agent discovered
a video titled “VID20130827162931.MP4.” That
video depicted an adult female digitally penetrating the
vagina of a toddler and simulating oral sex on the toddler.
The parole agent’s search also determined that
Defendant used the email address
Additional investigation revealed that Angela Martin
(“Martin”), a Connecticut resident, recorded the
Toddler Sex Abuse Video and emailed it to Defendant. On or
about September 19, 2013, FBI agents in Connecticut
questioned Martin, who stated, in substance and in part, that
she had been communicating with Defendant in an online chat
room focused on master/slave relationships. Martin stated
that she recorded the Toddler Sex Abuse Video of her 3
year-old niece (who Martin babysat along with the
victim’s sibling) because Defendant threatened to hurt
Martin, her husband, and the children Martin babysat if
Martin did not send pictures and videos showing the
“private parts” of the children. A review of
Martin’s phone showed an email on August 27, 2013, to
an individual identified as “Jesse” at
firstname.lastname@example.org. The Toddler Sex Abuse Video
was attached to that email.
Government’s Opp’n, ECF No. 51 at 5.
subsequent search of Martin’s phone revealed a text
message exchange between Martin and Defendant. In that
exchange, Defendant sent the following text messages:
“tell me when it’s sent”; “send it
again”; “Got it!!!”; “Downloading
now”; “I fucking love it!!! But you need to clip
your nails down to nothing. And try again tomorrow”;
that Defendant’s favorite part was the
three-year-old’s “gorgeous little pussy”;
and that Defendant could not wait to see Martin
“playing with [the victim] in person.”
seeks dismissal of this action on the grounds that the Court
lacks jurisdiction. Defendant is wrong.
this Nation’s Constitution, “[t]he judicial power
of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court,
and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to
time ordain and establish.” U.S. Const. art. I, §
1. “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in
law and equity, arising under this Constitution [and] the
laws of the United States . . . .” U.S. Const. art. I,
§ 2; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (“The
district courts of the United States shall have original
jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all
offenses against the laws of the United States.”).
action concerns Defendant’s alleged violations of 18
U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e) and 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2).
Those statutes are indisputably “the laws of the United
States, ” and this Court is undeniably a district court
of the United States established by Congress. Accordingly,
this Court has jurisdiction over Defendant’s alleged
violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e) and 18 U.S.C.
the Court has jurisdiction over this action,
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of ...