United States v. Jason Shortridge

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 28, 2025
• Docket: 23-4684
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4684 Doc: 55 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 11

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4684

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JASON SHORTRIDGE,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Frank W. Volk, Chief District Judge.

Submitted: February 27, 2025 Decided: April 28, 2025

Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Wesley P. Page, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. William S. Thompson, United States Attorney, Francesca C. Rollo, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4684 Doc: 55 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 11

PER CURIAM:

Jason Shortridge was convicted in a jury trial of possessing child pornography and

of attempting to distribute child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2),

(b)(1), (a)(5)(B), and (b)(2). 1 The district court calculated Shortridge’s sentencing

guidelines range as 210 to 262 months in prison. After a sentencing hearing, the court

varied downward and imposed a sentence of 168 months in prison and fifteen years of

supervised release.

On appeal, Shortridge makes three arguments. Shortridge first challenges the

district court’s decision to admit into evidence the testimony of a certain government expert

witness. Shortridge contends that the government failed to timely disclose that expert’s

testimony in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 (Rule 16), and that, as a

result, the testimony should have been excluded. Shortridge next challenges the

sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. Finally, Shortridge contends that

his sentence is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. For the reasons that

follow, we affirm Shortridge’s convictions and sentence.

I.

A.

We first consider Shortridge’s argument regarding Rule 16 and the admission of

expert testimony in a criminal case. Rule 16(a) sets forth the government’s duty to disclose

information to a criminal defendant. Subsection (a)(1)(G) of that Rule states: “At the

1 The jury acquitted Shortridge of two counts of distribution of child pornography. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4684 Doc: 55 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 3 of 11

defendant’s request, the government must give to the defendant a written summary of any

[expert witness] testimony that the government intends to use under Rules 702, 703, or 705

of the Federal Rules of Evidence during its case-in-chief at trial.” Fed. R. Crim. P.

16(a)(1)(G). Rule 16 does not provide a specified time period for expert witness

disclosures. But the advisory notes for Rule 16 suggest that parties should make their

disclosures “in a timely fashion.” 2 Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 advisory committee note to 1993

Amendment.

Here, the record shows that about one month before trial, Shortridge filed a motion

asking the government to disclose specific metadata concerning computer files that would

be submitted as evidence at trial. The district court held a hearing on that motion and

ordered the government to provide Shortridge with the requested disclosures by

March 29, 2022.

On March 28, 2022, the government met with its forensic expert witness regarding

the requested disclosures. After that meeting raised questions about locating the metadata

for certain files, the government’s forensic expert contacted another colleague (the second

forensic expert), who identified the metadata for the files in question. That expert also

2 Rule 16 was amended after Shortridge’s trial. That amendment, among other things, “provide[d] that the court, by order or local rule, must set a time for the government to make its disclosures of expert testimony to the defendant, and for the defense to make its disclosures of expert testimony to the government.” Id. advisory committee note to 2022 Amendment. However, because that amendment was not in effect during the trial, we apply the former version of Rule 16 as set forth above. See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 407 n.6 (4th Cir. 2010) (“As a general rule, the Supreme Court has advised that amendments to the Federal Rules should not apply retroactively.” (citing Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 275 n.29 (1994))). 3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4684 Doc: 55 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 4 of 11

uncovered certain other information, including that Shortridge had installed on his

computer software “designed to permanently delete, cover, or hide traces of activity such

as . . . having illicit material” (anti-forensic software).

On March 29, 2022, the government met with Shortridge to disclose the information

ordered by the district court and, the next day, gave Shortridge the additional information

discovered by the second forensic expert. On March 31, 2022, the government filed a

formal notice with the district court disclosing the expected testimony of the second

forensic expert. That same day, the government moved to continue the trial date based on

another matter not at issue here.

Shortridge asked the district court to strike as untimely and prejudicial the expected

testimony of the second forensic expert. After conducting a telephone conference with the

parties, the district court denied Shortridge’s motion to strike and continued the trial for

two months.

On appeal, Shortridge contends that the government’s failure to timely disclose the

testimony of the second forensic expert violated Rule 16 and should have resulted in the

exclusion of that evidence from trial. Shortridge also asserts that the government’s Rule

16 violation prejudiced his ability to defend himself. We disagree with Shortridge’s

arguments.

The decision whether a disclosure is timely is a matter submitted to the district

court’s discretion. United States v. Holmes, 670 F.3d 586, 599 (4th Cir. 2012). The

purpose of Rule 16 is to “minimize surprise” that may result from unexpected expert

testimony and to provide the defendant with a fair opportunity to prepare for cross-

4 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4684 Doc: 55 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 5 of 11

examination. United States v. Garcia-Lagunas, 835 F.3d 479, 494 (4th Cir. 2016) (citation

omitted). A district court is not required to issue a sanction for non-compliance with Rule

16, but, when it does, a continuance is the “preferred sanction.” United States v. Sterling,

724 F.3d 482, 512 (4th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). A defendant claiming that the district

court abused its discretion under Rule 16(a)(1)(G) bears the burden of showing both a

violation of that Rule and “prejudice resulting from the district court’s decision to admit

the contested testimony.” United States v. Smith, 701 F.3d 1002, 1008 (4th Cir. 2012)

(citation omitted).

In the present case, it is clear that the government’s disclosure of the expected

testimony of the second forensic expert witness occurred after the deadline for expert

witness disclosures set by the district court. Nevertheless, we do not find a basis for

concluding that the district court abused its discretion in granting a continuance instead of

striking that witness’ testimony. Shortridge does not contend that he was unable to prepare

to cross-examine the witness during the two-month continuance granted by the district

court. Moreover, although the testimony of the second forensic expert about the presence

of anti-forensic software bolstered the government’s case, we conclude that there otherwise

was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. For these reasons, Shortridge has not

made the required showing of prejudice. Garcia-Lagunas, 835 F.3d at 494 (explaining

that, to be prejudicial, a Rule 16 violation must “have so changed the defense’s ability to

cross-examine [a witness] that the trial would have come out differently” (citation

omitted)). Thus, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed

the testimony of the second forensic expert.

5 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4684 Doc: 55 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 6 of 11

B.

Shortridge next contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for

acquittal because the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain his convictions

for possession of child pornography and attempted distribution of child pornography.

Shortridge maintains that his computer’s hard drive did not contain “an active collection

of child pornography files,” which was consistent with his testimony that he deleted any

child pornography upon becoming aware of the nature of the downloaded files. Thus,

Shortridge argues that a jury could not reasonably conclude that he knowingly possessed

child pornography. Also, Shortridge argues that the record shows that he did not

knowingly attempt to distribute child pornography. We disagree with these arguments.

In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not review the credibility of the

witnesses, and we assume that the factfinder resolved all contradictions in the testimony in

favor of the government. United States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir. 2007). We

will not overturn a verdict if “‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d

358, 387 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Penniegraft, 641 F.3d 566, 571-72

(4th Cir. 2011)).

Here, there is ample evidence from which a jury reasonably could conclude that

Shortridge possessed child pornography and attempted to distribute child pornography. At

trial, Shortridge testified that he had downloaded and installed “Shareaza,” a peer-to-peer

software program. The evidence showed that, to use the Shareaza program, Shortridge was

required to acknowledge the software’s user agreement, which explained that downloaded

6 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4684 Doc: 55 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 7 of 11

content was shared with other software users. While the software’s installation process

permitted Shortridge to opt-out of sharing files that he chose to download, Shortridge did

not do so. Indeed, Shortridge expressly acknowledged that he understood that “Shareaza”

was a peer-to-peer program “where you can share stuff.”

Shortridge testified at trial that he used “Shareaza” to search only for adult

pornography and that he deleted any child pornography files once he realized the contents

of any such files. But Shortridge also acknowledged that the forensic evidence showed

that he had entered numerous search terms within “Shareaza,” and the government

presented evidence that many of the search terms used by Shortridge were associated

exclusively with child pornography. The evidence further demonstrated that Shortridge

“clicked on” and “viewed” some of the images and videos of child pornography multiple

times. Moreover, one of the government’s expert witnesses testified that more than one

thousand images of child pornography were accessible in Shortridge’s “downloads” and

“recycling bin” folders as late as April 28, 2019. 3

On this record, we conclude that a jury was entitled to discredit Shortridge’s

testimony that he did not knowingly download and possess child pornography and that he

did not knowingly share those files using a peer-to-peer software program. Thus, we hold

that a jury reasonably could find that Shortridge knowingly possessed child pornography

3 To the extent Shortridge argues that the record does not show that he possessed child pornography “on or about May 1, 2019,” we disagree. As we held in United States v. Ward, 676 F.2d 94, 96 (4th Cir. 1982), the government was required to prove only that the crime occurred on a date “reasonably near that alleged” in the indictment. Here, the government’s evidence satisfies that standard. 7 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4684 Doc: 55 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 8 of 11

and took a substantial step toward knowingly distributing child pornography. See United

States v. Neal, 78 F.3d 901, 906 (4th Cir. 1996) (explaining that a defendant can be

convicted of attempt only when the government shows that the defendant has culpability

to commit the crime charged and has taken “a substantial step towards the completion” of

that crime).

C.

Finally, Shortridge argues that his sentence is both procedurally and substantively

unreasonable. Shortridge primarily challenges the district court’s application of a two-

level sentencing enhancement for knowingly engaging in the distribution of child

pornography. See U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F). Similar to his arguments regarding the

sufficiency of the evidence, Shortridge contends that the government failed to show that

any completed distribution of child pornography was done knowingly. Shortridge also

asserts that his sentence “overstates the seriousness” of his conduct and is greater than

necessary to achieve the purpose of sentencing. We disagree.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-of-

discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). When considering a

challenge to the reasonableness of a sentence imposed by the district court, “we consider

both substantive reasonableness, considering the totality of the circumstances, and

procedural reasonableness, ensuring that the district court committed no significant

procedural error, such as miscalculating the sentencing guidelines, failing to consider the

§ 3553(a) criminal and personal history factors, or selecting a sentence based on erroneous

facts.” United States v. Zelaya, 908 F.3d 920, 930 (4th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).

8 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4684 Doc: 55 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 9 of 11

We first review a defendant’s sentence for procedural error, and we consider the

substantive reasonableness of the sentence only when there has not been any procedural

error. See United States v. Bolton, 858 F.3d 905, 911 (4th Cir. 2017). A defendant’s

challenge to the district court’s calculation of the Guidelines, including the court’s

application of any sentencing enhancements, raises an issue of procedural error. See United

States v. Pena, 952 F.3d 503, 512 (4th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted), as amended (Mar. 11,

2020). In addressing such an allegation of error, we review the district court’s legal

conclusions de novo and the court’s factual findings for clear error. United States v.

Horton, 693 F.3d 463, 474 (4th Cir. 2012).

We do not discern any procedural error in the district court’s calculation of the

Sentencing Guidelines range for Shortridge. In particular, we reject Shortridge’s

contention that the district court erred when it applied the sentencing enhancement in

U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F). To support imposition of that sentencing enhancement, the

government bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Shortridge

knowingly distributed child pornography. 4 United States v. Kokinda, 93 F.4th 635, 649

(4th Cir. 2024). We hold that the district court did not err in finding that the government

met its burden.

4 We observe that although the jury acquitted Shortridge of two counts of distribution of child pornography, those acquittals do not preclude the enhancement. We note that the recent Guidelines amendment limiting the use of acquitted conduct at sentencing is not retroactive and, thus, does not apply here. See U.S.S.G. Supp. to App. C, Amend. 826 (Nov. 1, 2024). 9 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4684 Doc: 55 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 10 of 11

As outlined above, the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that Shortridge

knowingly installed a peer-to-peer software program for sharing software onto his

computer with the understanding that any files he downloaded could be accessed by other

users. The record further showed that Shortridge searched for and downloaded child

pornography using that software, and that, at one point, there were hundreds of images of

child pornography that Shortridge made accessible to other Shareaza users in the

“downloads” folder on Shortridge’s computer. Indeed, the government presented evidence

at trial that a law enforcement officer was able to use software to download child

pornography images from Shortridge’s device. These facts showed by a preponderance of

the evidence that Shortridge engaged in the distribution of child pornography when he

knowingly installed and used the Shareaza software. Thus, we conclude that the district

court did not clearly err in applying the sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G.

§ 2G2.2(b)(3)(F).

We next consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. To be

substantively reasonable, a sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,”

to accomplish the § 3553(a) sentencing goals. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); see United States v.

Rose, 3 F.4th 722, 731 (4th Cir. 2021). When, as here, a sentence is within or below a

properly calculated Guidelines range, we presume that the sentence is substantively

reasonable. United States v. Gutierrez, 963 F.3d 320, 344 (4th Cir. 2020) (citation

omitted). That presumption “can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is

unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.

10 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4684 Doc: 55 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 11 of 11

We conclude that Shortridge has not shown that his term of imprisonment is

unreasonable when measured against the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Accordingly,

Shortridge has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded his below-

Guidelines sentence. See Gutierrez, 963 F.3d at 344. We therefore hold that Shortridge

has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

II.

For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment with respect to

Shortridge’s convictions and sentence.

AFFIRMED