Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D was convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree. The crime involved his then 53-year-old girlfriend. Presentence Eleven years later, D was indicted for attempting to receive child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(2) and for possessing child pornography in violation of §2252(a)(4)(B). D pleaded guilty to the possession offense and the Government dismissed the receipt offense. The presentence report calculated a guidelines range of 78 to 97 months for the possession offense. The report concluded that D was subject to §2252(b)(2)’s mandatory minimum because his prior New York abuse conviction related “to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward.” D argued that the statutory phrase “involving a minor or ward” applies to all three listed crimes: “aggravated sexual abuse,” “sexual abuse,” and “abusive sexual conduct.” Thus, his prior conviction for sexual abuse involving an adult fell outside the enhancement’s reach. The District Court rejected D’s argument and applied the mandatory minimum. The Second Circuit affirmed. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.