In the prosecution of a federal child pornography offense, the government has the burden of proving that images offered as evidence of child pornography were of real children [possession of “virtual” child pornography is not a criminal offense]; however, the images themselves are sufficient to prove the depiction of actual minors. Appellant was prosecuted for receipt or distribution of material involving sexual exploitation of minors. Videos and still images seized from appellant’s hard drives and CD-ROM were offered as evidence. On appeal, the appellate court noted that other districts have rejected the argument made by appellant that the images, themselves, were insufficient evidence that real children were portrayed. Nevertheless, it declined to reach the issue, finding that the government had presented additional extrinsic evidence [appellant’s admission and police contact with the minors on the images] that was sufficient evidence that the images were of real children.