No. 19-2042 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jerris M. Blanks

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: December 17, 2020 Filed: February 1, 2021 ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. ____________ WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Jerris Blanks was convicted of three counts related to the receipt and possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), (a)(5)(B), (b)(1), and (b)(2) and was sentenced to 130 months’ imprisonment. Blanks argues that the district court1 abused its discretion in denying him leave to re-file pretrial motions and in admitting certain evidence. We affirm.

I. Background

Law enforcement officers found more than 1,000 images of child pornography and child erotica and fourteen videos of child pornography on Blanks’s devices and online accounts. The internet search history on Blanks’s cellphone indicated that he had also accessed online images of child pornography and child erotica. Upon being charged, Blanks moved to dismiss the indictment. He also moved to suppress evidence seized from his online accounts and obtained pursuant to a search warrant.

Blanks and the Government reached a pre-ruling non-binding plea agreement, which required that Blanks withdraw all previously filed motions and waive his right to file any further pretrial motions. During a hearing before a magistrate judge,2 Blanks confirmed that he wished to withdraw his motions and waive his right to file further motions. After rejecting the plea agreement, the district court, as set forth above, denied Blanks’s motion to re-file pretrial motions.

Blanks stipulated at trial that the seized images contained child pornography and moved that the images not be shown to the jury because they were not probative and were also unfairly prejudicial. The government responded that it intended to show the jury only forty-two images. The court denied Blanks’s motion to exclude the evidence, concluding that this percentage of images was less than that normally

1 The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 The Honorable Nannette A. Baker, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-2- shown in child pornography trials. Forty-two images were shown to the jury, but no videos were presented.

II. Discussion

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of leave to file untimely pretrial motions, as well as its evidentiary rulings. United States v. Trancheff, 633 F.3d 696, 697–98 (8th Cir. 2011).

A. Pretrial Motions

Blanks first argues that the district court abused its discretion when it denied him leave to re-file his pretrial motions after rejecting his plea agreement. It is undisputed that the deadline for pretrial motions had already passed when Blanks withdrew his pretrial motions and waived his right to file further motions.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(c)(1) permits the court to “set a deadline for the parties to make pretrial motions.” The court may extend or reset filing deadlines, but will not consider an untimely motion unless the party shows good cause for the del