United States v. Jerome Ruddell

2 F.3d 1159 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerome RUDDELL, Defendant-Appellant. No. 92-10451. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 21, 1993. * Decided Aug. 5, 1993. Before: BROWNING, TANG and NORRIS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Jerome Ruddell appeals his conviction, following a conditional guilty plea, for receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2252 (a)(2). Ruddell contends, among other things, that section 2252 is facially unconstitutional in light of our decision in United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 982 F.2d 1285 (9th Cir.1992). 1 We review de novo, see United States v. Martinez, 967 F.2d 1343, 1348 (9th Cir.1992), and reverse. 3 We recently held that section 2252 is facially unconstitutional because it does not require knowledge of the minority of the performers as an element of the crime. See X-Citement Video, 982 F.2d at 1292-93 . The government…