PRECEDENTIAL

    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