The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction of Billy J. Griffith for federal charges related to child sexual abuse material in an unpublished per curiam opinion filed Jan. 30, 2026.
A federal jury convicted Griffith of receipt of child sexual abuse material under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), (b)(1) and possession of child sexual abuse material involving prepubescent minors under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2). The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia sentenced Griffith to 132 months' imprisonment, representing a downward variance from his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range.
On appeal, Griffith challenged his conviction on the receipt charge, arguing the district court abused its discretion when it declined to add the phrase "at the time of the receipt" to jury instructions regarding the knowledge element of the receipt charge. The Fourth Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Wynn and Thacker and Senior Circuit Judge Keenan, found no reversible error in the district court's handling of the jury instructions.
The case originated in the Southern District of West Virginia under District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, with the criminal case numbered 2:22-cr-00218-1. The appeal was submitted to the Fourth Circuit on Jan. 22, 2026, and decided eight days later.
Scott C. Brown of the Scott C. Brown Law Office in Wheeling, West Virginia, represented Griffith on appeal. The government was represented by U.S. Attorney William S. Thompson and Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew J. Tessman from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Charleston, West Virginia.
The Fourth Circuit applied the abuse of discretion standard when reviewing the district court's refusal to provide Griffith's requested jury instruction modification. Under this standard, appellate courts give substantial deference to trial courts' decisions regarding jury instructions, recognizing that district judges are in the best position to evaluate the appropriateness of particular instruction language given the specific facts and legal issues in each case.
The court cited United States v. Contreras, 149 F.4th 349, 366 (4th Cir.), as precedent for the abuse of discretion review standard for refused jury instructions. This standard requires appellate courts to affirm unless the district court's decision was unreasonable or clearly erroneous.
Federal charges for receipt and possession of child sexual abuse material carry severe penalties under federal law. The receipt charge under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), (b)(1) carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years and a maximum of 20 years imprisonment. The possession charge involving prepubescent minors under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2) carries a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment.
Griffith's 132-month sentence, equivalent to 11 years, fell within the statutory range but represented a downward departure from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines calculation. Federal sentencing guidelines provide recommended sentence ranges based on offense characteristics and defendant criminal history, but judges retain discretion to impose sentences above or below the guideline range in appropriate cases.
The knowledge element that Griffith challenged relates to the prosecution's burden to prove a defendant knew the material depicted minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This element distinguishes between knowing receipt of illegal material and inadvertent receipt. Griffith's proposed jury instruction modification would have emphasized that the knowledge requirement applies specifically at the time of receipt.
The Fourth Circuit's decision to affirm suggests the existing jury instructions adequately conveyed the knowledge requirement without the additional temporal language Griffith requested. Federal courts regularly address challenges to jury instructions in child exploitation cases, as defendants frequently argue that standard instructions fail to properly convey the specific mental state requirements.
This unpublished opinion does not create binding precedent within the Fourth Circuit, which covers Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. However, the decision reflects the circuit's continued vigilance in prosecuting federal crimes involving the exploitation of children while maintaining appropriate procedural safeguards for defendants.
The case demonstrates the federal justice system's approach to child exploitation crimes, which have become increasingly common as technology facilitates the distribution of illegal material. Federal prosecutors regularly pursue both receipt and possession charges to ensure comprehensive accountability for those who participate in the market for child sexual abuse material.
Griffith's conviction and the Fourth Circuit's affirmance represent another successful prosecution under federal statutes designed to combat the sexual exploitation of children. The case reflects ongoing federal enforcement priorities targeting individuals who receive and possess such material, contributing to the demand that drives the production of child sexual abuse material.