United States v. Steven Grovo

MEMORANDUM

For the reasons stated in our concurrently filed opinion, we hold sufficient evidence supports Grovo’s and Petersen’s convictions and remand for the district court to recalculate restitution. As relevant here, we find no error in the district court’s rulings on the sufficiency of Counts I and II of the indictment, venue, double jeopardy and the length of Grovo’s sentence. We therefore affirm each defendant’s convictions and Grovo’s 360-month sentence.

The district court did not err in upholding the sufficiency of the indictment. “An indictment must be read in its entirety and construed in accord with common sense and practicality.” United States v. Alber, 56 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 1995). It is “generally sufficient” for an indictment to “set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself.” Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 , 94 S.Ct. 2887 , 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974). Both Count I, alleging participation in a child exploitation enterprise (CEE) under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g), and Count II, alleging conspiracy to advertise child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (d) and (e), meet this standard.

Count I tracked the statutory language of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g)…