United States of America v. Yevgeniy Dudko

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2978
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Yevgeniy Dudko
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: April 16, 2026
Filed: June 15, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
On March 13, 2023, the Greene County, Missouri, Sheriff’s Office was
notified that an adult female had discovered child pornography on Yevgeniy
Dudko’s cell phone. After a bench trial, the district court1 found Dudko guilty on
1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and
(e), and one count of receipt and distribution of child pornography, 18 U.S.C.
§ 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). The district court sentenced Dudko to consecutive 300-
month sentences on the two sexual exploitation of a minor convictions, and a
concurrent 120-month sentence on the conviction for receipt and distribution of child
pornography, for a total sentence of 600 months’ imprisonment. Dudko appeals,
claiming there was insufficient evidence to support one of his convictions—receipt
and distribution of child pornography—and his sentences should be vacated under
the sentencing package doctrine. We affirm.
Prior to trial, Dudko stipulated that the images and videos recovered from his
cell phone depicted “minors less than 18 years of age engaged in sexually explicit
conduct” and that the images had been transported in interstate commerce. At trial,
the prosecutor introduced eleven exhibits, including two stipulations of fact signed
by Dudko, a thumb drive containing the full forensic extraction of Dudko’s phone,
and six example images of child pornography recovered from Dudko’s phone.
Dudko introduced a certificate of translation of the parties’ factual stipulations but
did not offer any other evidence or call any witnesses. Defense counsel’s closing
argument was brief, stating: “Your Honor, we do understand and have stipulated to
the evidence in this case and our reasons for doing so will be explained at a later
date.” The district court followed up by asking Dudko to confirm that he signed the
stipulation of facts. Dudko responded: “Yes, I did sign it.” Based on the stipulated
facts and the other exhibits received at trial, the court issued a written decision
finding Dudko guilty on all three counts.
On appeal, Dudko challenges only the receipt and distribution of child
pornography conviction, contending the factual stipulations and the two images
relied on by the prosecutor do not establish lascivious conduct.2 Ordinarily, “[w]e
review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing evidence in the light most
2 Dudko does not challenge his other two convictions or the substantive
reasonableness of his sentences.

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
favorable to the government, resolving conflicts in the government’s favor, and
accepting all reasonable inferences that support the verdict.” United States v.
Golden, 44 F.4th 1129, 1132 (8th Cir. 2022). But, where a defendant does not move
for a judgment of acquittal, we review his sufficiency of the evidence claim for plain
error. United States v. Calhoun, 721 F.3d 596, 600 (8th Cir. 2013). To demonstrate
plain error, Dudko must show an error that was plain, which affected his substantial
rights and seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings. Id.
Federal law defines “child pornography” as “any visual depiction . . . of a
minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(A). A depiction
of a minor that includes the “lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic
area” constitutes “sexually explicit conduct.” Id. § 2256(2)(A)(v). While Dudko
argues that the two exemplar images introduced by the prosecutor depict mere nudity
and are insufficient as a matter of law, the fact that minor children “were not acting
in an obviously sexual manner . . . does not necessarily indicate that the [images]
themselves were not or were not intended to be lascivious.” United States v.
Johnson, 639 F.3d 433, 440 (8th Cir. 2011). The two images at issue appear to be
screenshots from a video call taken at precisely the moment when the minors are
positioned in a way that reveals their genitals. Given this context, a rational
factfinder could conclude that Dudko captured the images at a moment that appealed
to his sexual desires. See id. (noting that “even images of children acting innocently
can be considered lascivious if they are intended to be sexual”). Moreover, these
two images are not the only images in the record. The record also includes a thumb
drive containing over a thousand pictures and videos containing child pornography
that law enforcement extracted from Dudko’s cell phone.
On this record, we can find no error—plain or otherwise. Because there is
sufficient evidence in the record to sustain Dudko’s conviction for receipt and
distribution of child pornography, we need not reach his argument that his sentences
should be vacated under the sentencing package doctrine. We note, however, that
vacatur of the challenged conviction would not affect Dudko’s imprisonment term,

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
as the district court ordered the 120-month sentence on this conviction to run
concurrently with the other two uncontested convictions for which the district court
imposed consecutive imprisonment terms of 300 months.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 4 of 4 --