No. 22-1476 ___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Justin Treanton,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________

Submitted: September 23, 2022 Filed: January 18, 2023 ____________ Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

Justin Treanton pleaded guilty to two child pornography offenses. The district 1 court sentenced him to 600 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Treanton challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence and the sentence

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. imposed. We conclude that there is no reversible error, and therefore affirm the judgment.

I.

In January 2020, a computer user sent electronic files containing child pornography to an undercover officer in New Zealand on a social media platform. The user identified himself as a thirty-five-year-old male from the United States, and told the officer that the files depicted his four-year-old daughter. The officer alerted federal law enforcement agents in the United States, and agents traced the user’s internet protocol address to a house in Bettendorf, Iowa. Information about a driver’s license and vehicle associated with the address revealed that Treanton was the only male resident aged thirty-five years.

Federal and state law enforcement agents executed a search warrant at the Bettendorf residence, but Treanton was not present. After further investigation, agents determined that Treanton might be located at a different house in Bettendorf. The agents visited that house and obtained consent from its owner to search the garage for Treanton.

In the garage, agents found Treanton hiding behind stacks of boxes and debris. The agents instructed Treanton to climb over the debris toward them. Treanton began climbing but stalled due to conflicting instructions from the agents. An agent near the bay door then pulled Treanton down from the debris pile, and caused him to fall to the ground.

The agents believed that they saw Treanton holding a large object and ordered him to show his hands. When Treanton refused, an agent punched him once in the face and placed him in handcuffs. The agents then searched Treanton. When they

-2- did not find a weapon, the agents removed the handcuffs and told Treanton that he was not under arrest.

Two agents walked Treanton to a vehicle near the garage for an interview. Once in the vehicle, the agents told Treanton several times that he was not under arrest. The agents also advised Treanton that he was free to leave whenever he wished, and did not have to answer any questions. Treanton talked with the agents for over ninety minutes and made incriminating statements about photos and videos that contained child pornography. He also consented to a search of his two cellular devices. Near the end of the interview, a county attorney instructed the agents to arrest Treanton on state criminal charges. The agents then informed Treanton of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and transported him to jail.

A grand jury charged Treanton with child pornography offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251 and 2252. Treanton moved to suppress stat