Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03621/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03621-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Lee Loisel
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3621

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District of Iowa.

*

Michael Lee Loisel, * [UNPUBLISHED] 

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 17, 2006

Filed: May 22, 2006

___________

Before BYE, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Lee Loisel appeals the district court’s1

 imposition of a sentence of ten

years of imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2). We affirm.

Loisel pled guilty to possessing child pornography, but appeals his sentence of

ten years arguing the district court erred in applying an enhancement under

§ 2252A(b)(2). Section 2252A(b)(2) provides a person convicted of possessing child

Appellate Case: 05-3621 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/22/2006 Entry ID: 2047228
-2-

pornography shall be sentenced to a minimum of ten years of imprisonment “if such

person has a prior conviction under . . . the laws of any State relating to aggravated

sexual abuse, sexual abuse or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or a ward.”

In a prior state proceeding, Loisel pled guilty to the charge of Assault with

Intent to Commit Sexual Abuse (No Bodily Injury) under Iowa law, for which he

received a deferred judgment. Loisel argues this deferred judgment does not

constitute a prior conviction under Iowa law for purposes of § 2252A(b)(2).

Loisel’s argument, however, is foreclosed by our ruling in United States v.

Storer, 413 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding defendant’s nolo contendere plea to

felony lewd and lascivious conduct under Florida law along with state court’s finding

of guilt, despite the withholding of adjudication and sentencing, constituted a prior

conviction under § 2252A). In Storer, we specifically held § 2252A(b)(2) applies

federal law to determine whether a state conviction qualifies as a prior conviction. Id.

at 921-22. Loisel does not dispute whether federal law considers a deferred judgment

under state law to be a prior conviction under § 2252A(b)(2). See United States v.

Fuchness, 422 F.3d 698, 703 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding Iowa deferred judgment for

narcotics violation was prior conviction for sentencing purposes). Instead, Loisel asks

us to overturn Storer. We, of course, cannot do so. See United States v. Wright, 22

F.3d 787, 788 (8th Cir. 1994) (noting we are bound by our precedent unless such

precedent is overturned by the court sitting en banc). 

Accordingly, we conclude Loisel’s prior deferred judgment under Iowa law is

a prior conviction for purposes of § 2252A(b)(2). We therefore affirm the district

court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3621 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/22/2006 Entry ID: 2047228