## Facts

- A federal investigation led to the prosecution of Adam Grzybowicz for child-exploitation offenses involving digital images.
- The government alleged that Grzybowicz possessed and produced child pornography by creating or obtaining images depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
- The prosecution’s theory also included “distribution,” asserting that Grzybowicz transmitted or made child pornography available using electronic means.
- At trial, the government relied on digital evidence and testimony to show Grzybowicz’s connection to the images and to establish the charged conduct.
- The defense challenged whether the proof showed distribution to any other person, emphasizing the absence of evidence that another individual actually received or accessed the images.
- The jury found Grzybowicz guilty on multiple counts, including possession/production-related offenses and a distribution count.
- The district court entered judgment on the verdict and imposed sentence consistent with the convictions.
- Grzybowicz appealed, arguing that the evidence and the legal meaning of “distribute” did not support the distribution conviction as charged.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove “distribution” of child pornography under the applicable federal statute when the proof did not show transfer, receipt, or access by another person.
2. Whether a conviction for distribution may be sustained based solely on movement of files within a defendant’s control or mere availability without proof of dissemination to others.
3. What remedy applies on appeal when the evidence supports some child-exploitation convictions but not the distribution conviction.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions supported by evidence establishing unlawful involvement with child-pornography images (including possession/production-related counts).
- The court vacated the distribution conviction, holding the evidence was insufficient to prove distribution as charged.
- The court explained that “distribution” requires evidence of dissemination beyond the defendant—such as transferring, delivering, or making the files available in a manner that results in distribution to another person.
- The court rejected the view that internal file movement or storage under the defendant’s control, without proof of sharing or delivery to someone else, satisfies distribution.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with vacating the distribution count, including resentencing if the vacatur affected the overall sentencing package.

## Legal Principles

- For federal child-pornography distribution offenses, “distribution” generally requires dissemination to another person (e.g., transfer, delivery, or successful sharing), not merely personal handling of the files.
- Sufficiency review requires viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, but a conviction cannot stand where an essential element lacks evidentiary support.
- The government must prove each statutory element beyond a reasonable doubt; when “distribution” is charged, proof must connect the defendant’s conduct to distribution beyond the defendant’s exclusive control.
- When one conviction in a multi-count judgment is vacated for insufficient evidence, appellate courts may affirm remaining counts and remand for resentencing if the sentence may have been influenced by the vacated count.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that the government did not present enough evidence to prove Grzybowicz distributed child pornography because the record did not show dissemination to another person, so it vacated that conviction while leaving intact the remaining child-exploitation convictions and remanding for any necessary resentencing.


United States v. Grzybowicz, 747 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2014)