UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________

Nos. 19-2424 & 19-2932 _______________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DYLAN HEATHERLY, also known as Daniel Sotherland, also known as John Doe-9, Appellant in No. 19-2424 _______________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

WILLIAM STAPLES, also known as Bill Simpson, also known as John Doe-7, Appellant in No. 19-2932 _______________

On Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Nos. 1:16-cr-00082-010 & 1:16-cr-00082-008) District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane _______________ Argued: July 8, 2020

Before: McKEE, BIBAS, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges

(Filed: January 14, 2021) _______________ Robert J. Daniels [ARGUED] Richard H. Katsifis Killian & Gephart 218 Pine Street P.O. Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Counsel for Appellant Dylan Heatherly M. Jason Asbell [ARGUED] Gibbel, Kraybill & Hess 2933 Lititz Pike P.O. Box 5349 Lancaster, PA 17606 Counsel for Appellant William Staples Stephen R. Cerutti, II Office of United States Attorney Middle District of Pennsylvania 228 Walnut Street P.O. Box 11754 220 Federal Building and Courthouse Harrisburg, PA 17108

2 Austin M. Berry [ARGUED] United States Department of Justice Criminal Division Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section 1400 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Counsel for Appellee _______________

OPINION OF THE COURT _______________ BIBAS, Circuit Judge. Dylan Heatherly and William Staples frequented an inter- net chat room where users regularly shared child pornography. One chat-room user repeatedly live-streamed himself raping and sexually abusing his six-year-old nephew. Heatherly and Staples encouraged him as he did so. And they repeatedly asked users for other child-pornography videos too. A jury convicted the men of receiving child pornography and conspir- ing to do the same. Though they challenge their convictions and sentences on many grounds, we find no error and will affirm across the board. In doing so, we hold that the District Court properly ad- mitted videos shown in the chat room of children suffering vi- olent sexual abuse. After reviewing that evidence for itself, the court properly found that the risk of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh its probative value. The evidence was highly probative of the conspiracy and the defendants’ aware- ness of what they were involved in.

3 I. BACKGROUND Child-pornography cases test our legal system’s commit- ment to fairness. That is doubly true of cases involving child rape and sexual abuse. Though the details to follow are unset- tling, to do justice we must describe the facts explicitly, with- out flinching. A. The investigation Long before it became a staple of working from home, Zoom was regularly used for sharing child pornography. Ra- ther than download images or videos, child pornographers and viewers can meet in a Zoom conference room while one user plays a video and shares his screen. The chat function lets them share messages either privately with a single user or publicly with everyone in the room. The child-pornography community has developed its own language and rules of conduct in these rooms. Typically, users require one another to turn their computers’ webcams on so that others can see that they are real users, not bots or police. Users have a shorthand to describe the kind of pornogra