2012 Missouri case
In October 2012, after being reported August 2011 by his wife, a 36-year-old man named Christian Bee in Monett, Missouri entered a plea bargain to "possession of cartoons depicting child pornography", with the US attorney's office for the Western District of Missouri recommending a 3-year prison sentence without parole. The office in conjunction with the Southwest Missouri Cyber Crimes Task Force argued that the "Incest Comics" on Bee's computer "clearly lack any literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Christian Bee was originally indicted for possession of actual child pornography, but that charge was dropped as part of a plea deal, and was instead charged with possession of the "Incest Comics."  
2008 Iowa case
In October 2008, a 38-year-old Iowa comic collector named Christopher Handley was prosecuted for possession of explicit lolicon manga. The judge ruled that two parts of the PROTECT Act criminalizing "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" were unconstitutional, but Handley still faced an obscenity charge. Handley was convicted in May 2009 as the result of entering a guilty plea bargain at the recommendation of his lawyer, under the belief that the jury chosen to judge him would not acquit him of the obscenity charges if they were shown the images of question.
2005 Virginia case
In Richmond, Virginia, in December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1466A for using a Virginia Employment Commission computer to receive "obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males." On December 18, 2008, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, consisting of 20 years imprisonment. The court stated:
Thus, regardless of whether §1466A(a)(1) requires an actual minor, it is nonetheless a valid restriction on obscene speech under Miller, not a restriction on non-obscene pornography of the type permitted by Ferber. We thus find Whorley's as-applied constitutional challenge to §1466A(a)(1) to be without merit.
Attorneys for Mr. Whorley have said that they would appeal to the Supreme Court. The request for rehearing was denied on June 15, 2009, and the petition for his case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court was denied on January 11, 2010.
Are you done?