
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dustin CHERAMIE, also known as Dustin Cole Cheramie, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-30788
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 25, 2006.
    William P. Gibbens, Brian M. Klebba, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    John H. Craft, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Robin Elise Schulberg, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Dustin Cheramie appeals from his conviction of possession, receipt, and transportation of child pornography. Cheramie contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for transporting child pornography and therefore requests that this count be set aside. He argues that file sharing programs like the one he used differ from other uses of the Internet in that they do not require repeated volitional acts on the part of the user. Because the file sharing process does not require acts of volition, Cheramie suggests, a defendant who has engaged in file sharing has not knowingly transmitted pornography.

We need not address the distinctions between file sharing programs and other forms of Internet usage. The evidence at trial was sufficient to prove that Cheramie knew that he was transmitting child pornography. See United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 69-78, 115 S.Ct. 464, 130 L.Ed.2d 372 (1994). The Government presented evidence that Cheramie saved images to different files after receiving them; those images had names clearly indicating that they were child pornography; and he confessed to having transmitted images to other individuals. We will not disturb the jury’s credibility determinations. United States v. Molinar-Apodaca, 889 F.2d 1417, 1423 (5th Cir.1989).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     