Background
Joshua Schatz pled guilty to possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). At sentencing, the government sought to apply a mandatory minimum enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2), which increases the minimum sentence to 10–20 years if the defendant has a prior state conviction “relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward.” Schatz had a prior Indiana conviction under Indiana Code § 35-42-4-3(b) for child molesting (fondling a two-year-old child).
Schatz argued the enhancement did not apply because Indiana’s statute protected victims up to age fourteen, while the federal aggravated sexual abuse statute covers only victims under twelve. He contended his prior state conviction was not congruent enough with federal law to trigger the enhancement. The district court disagreed and imposed the 10-year mandatory minimum. Schatz appealed the application of the enhancement.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the phrase “relating to” in 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2) must be interpreted broadly, not as requiring strict congruence between state and federal offenses. Following its prior en banc decision in United States v. Liestman, the court concluded that “relating to” carries its ordinary meaning: conduct that bears a connection and addresses the same harm as the federal benchmark, even if the state statute reaches somewhat farther.
Applying the categorical approach, the court identified the least serious conduct realistically prosecutable under Indiana’s statute as touching of intimate body parts between children of similar ages below fourteen, with intent to arouse or satisfy sexual desire. This conduct, the court found, clearly “relates to” federal sexual abuse offenses because it targets the same harm—sexual exploitation of children. The court rejected arguments that the different age thresholds (14 in Indiana versus 12 federally) or the possibility of juvenile perpetrators should disqualify the enhancement.
The court emphasized that identical statutory language in adjacent federal provisions § 2252(b)(1) and § 2252A(b)(2)—both containing “relating to”—must receive the same interpretation. Giving “relating to” its broad meaning avoids rendering the enhancement meaningless in states whose sexual abuse statutes are broader than federal law.
Key Takeaways
- “Relating to” in federal sentencing enhancements should be read broadly to encompass conduct that shares the same harm as the federal benchmark, not requiring strict element-by-element congruence
- A state conviction triggers a federal sentencing enhancement even if the state statute covers somewhat broader conduct (e.g., older victims, younger offenders) than the federal statute
- The categorical approach focuses on the least serious conduct realistically prosecutable under state law, determined by examining how state courts have actually applied the statute
- The court declined to exclude from the analysis conduct that would be adjudicated in juvenile court under state procedure, as doing so would add unnecessary complexity to the categorical approach
Why It Matters
This decision significantly affects defendants with prior state sexual abuse convictions. By adopting a broad interpretation of “relating to,” the court makes it substantially easier for prosecutors to invoke federal sentencing enhancements, even when a defendant’s prior state conviction does not precisely track federal statutory elements. The holding reduces the possibility that defendants can avoid enhanced federal sentences by pointing to technical differences between state and federal age thresholds, scienter requirements, or victim-offender relationships.
The decision also clarifies that federal courts should not impose additional procedural or jurisdictional screens (such as excluding juvenile adjudications) in the categorical approach. This favors broader application of sentencing enhancements for child sexual abuse cases, with significant practical consequences for sentences in federal child exploitation prosecutions. The ruling may have implications beyond child abuse statutes to other federal sentencing enhancements using “relating to” language.