Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-12-04481/USCOURTS-ca6-12-04481-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher J. Mateen
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Jeffrey J. Helmick, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio,

sitting by designation.

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)

File Name: 14a0006p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CHRISTOPHER J. MATEEN,

 Defendant-Appellee.

X

-

-

-

-

>

,

-

-

N

No. 12-4481

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.

No. 2:12-cr-00041-1—Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., District Judge.

Argued: October 11, 2013

Decided and Filed: January 7, 2014 

Before: MOORE and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; HELMICK, District Judge.*

_________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Benjamin C. Glassman, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,

Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant. Kevin M. Schad, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S

OFFICE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Benjamin C. Glassman, UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant. Kevin M. Schad,

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee.

MOORE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HELMICK, D.J., joined.

McKEAGUE, J. (pp. 12–13), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.

1

 Case: 12-4481 Document: 44-2 Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 1
No. 12-4481 United States v. Mateen Page 2

_________________

OPINION

_________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Individuals convicted of possessing

child pornography are subject to a sentencing enhancement if they have also been

convicted of certain predicate state or federal offenses. In this appeal, we consider

whether a state sexual offense that does not necessarily involve a minor or ward can

trigger the sentencing enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2).

Mateen pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography in interstate commerce

and was sentenced to a ten-year statutory maximum term of imprisonment. When

calculating Mateen’s sentence, the district court concluded that the statutory

enhancement for recidivist sexual offenders did not apply to Mateen because his prior

conviction for Gross Sexual Imposition did not necessarily involve a minor or ward. The

government argues that the district court misconstrued the statute, and that state offenses

that do not involve a minor or ward may qualify as predicate offenses for purposes of

triggering the sentencing enhancement. We disagree.

Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment concluding that Mateen’s

prior conviction was insufficient to trigger the sentencing enhancement.

I. BACKGROUND

After police discovered over 600 images of child pornography on his computer,

Christopher Mateen pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). R. 18 (Guilty Plea at 1) (Page ID #31). This was not the first

time Mateen had been convicted of a sexual crime. In 2006, he pleaded guilty to Gross

Sexual Imposition in violation of Ohio Revised Code § 2907.05. Ohio law provides:

(A) No person shall have sexual contact with another, not the spouse of

the offender; cause another, not the spouse of the offender, to have sexual

contact with the offender; or cause two or more other persons to have

sexual contact when any of the following applies:

 Case: 12-4481 Document: 44-2 Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 2
No. 12-4481 United States v. Mateen Page 3

(1) The offender purposely compels the other person, or

one of the other persons, to submit by force or threat of

force.

(2) For the purpose of preventing resistance, the offender

substantially impairs the judgment or control of the

person or of one of the other persons by administering

any drug, intoxicant, or controlled substance to the other

person surreptitiously or by force, threat of force, or

deception.

(3) The offender knows that the judgment or control of

the other person or of one of the other persons is

substantially impaired as a result of the influence of any

drug or intoxicant administered to the other person with

the other person’s consent for the purpose of any kind of

medical or dental examination, treatment, or surgery.

(4) The other person, or one of the other persons, is less

than thirteen years of age, whether or not the offender

knows the age of that person.

(5) The ability of the other person to resist or consent or

the ability of one of the other persons to resist or consent

is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical

condition or because of advanced age, and the offender

knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the ability

to resist or consent of the other person or of one of the

other persons is substantially impaired because of a

mental or physical condition or because of advanced age.

(B) No person shall knowingly touch the genitalia of another, when the

touching is not through clothing, the other person is less than twelve

years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of that person,

and the touching is done with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,

degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.05. The Gross Sexual Imposition statute includes both third -

and - fourth degree felonies. Id. at § 2907.05(C)(1). Although the judgment from

Mateen’s state conviction does not specify the subsection on which Mateen’s guilty plea

rested, it does clarify that Mateen pleaded guilty to a fourth-degree felony. R. 30-1

(Com. Pleas J. Entry at 1) (Page ID #77). The state-court plea colloquy indicates that

Mateen’s victim on this count was an eight-year-old girl. R. 33-1 (Com. Pleas Plea

Colloquy Tr. at 2–4) (Page ID #89–91).

 Case: 12-4481 Document: 44-2 Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 3
No. 12-4481 United States v. Mateen Page 4

The government sought to apply a statutory sentencing enhancement on the basis

of Mateen’s prior state conviction for Gross Sexual Imposition. R. 12 (Plea Agreement

¶ 2) (Page ID #18–19). For first-time offenders, violation of § 2252(a)(4) carries a

maximum sentence of ten years. 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2). However, the federal statute

includes a sentencing enhancement for recidivist offenders. Relevant here, an individual

with a prior conviction “under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse,

sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward . . . shall be fined

under this title and imprisoned for not less than 10 years nor more than 20 years.” Id.

Mateen reserved the right to contest whether his prior state conviction qualified him for

the enhancement. R. 12 (Plea Agreement ¶ 2) (Page ID #19).

The district court determined that the enhancement did not apply and sentenced

Mateen to 120 months of imprisonment pursuant to the statutory maximum. R. 39 (Tr.

of Sentencing Hr’g at 21–22) (Page ID #154–55). When it construed the statute, the

district court concluded that the phrase “involving a minor or ward” modifies all three

types of listed conduct: aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, and abusive sexual

conduct. R. 36 (D. Ct. Op. at 6) (Page ID #117). The district court acknowledged the

government’s argument that the disjunctive “or” indicates that a prior conviction need

not involve a minor if it relates to aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse. Id. at 5

(Page ID #116). However, the district court reasoned that the rule of the last antecedent

“‘is not an absolute and can assuredly be overcome by other indicia of meaning.’” Id.

(quoting Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 26 (2003)). The court noted that the title and

chapter in which § 2252 is indexed are labeled “Certain activities relating to material

involving the sexual exploitation of minors” and “Sexual Exploitation and other Abuse

of Children,” respectively, and concluded that these labels are “significant indicia” that

“involving a minor or ward” modifies all of the listed conduct in § 2252(b)(2). Id. at 6

(Page ID #117).

The district court then used the modified categorical approach articulated in

Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), and Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13

(2005), to determine that Mateen’s prior conviction did not necessarily involve a minor

 Case: 12-4481 Document: 44-2 Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 4
No. 12-4481 United States v. Mateen Page 5

or ward and therefore did not trigger the sentencing enhancement. Id. at 6–7, 10 (Page

ID #117–18, 121). On appeal, the United States argues that the district court

misconstrued the sentencing enhancement statute.

II. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

The government argues that the district court erroneously construed the

sentencing enhancement provision of § 2252(b)(2). “This court reviews de novo a

district court’s legal conclusion that a prior conviction triggers a mandatory minimum

sentence.” United States v. Gardner, 649 F.3d 437, 442 (6th Cir. 2011). The

government contends that the phrase “involving a minor or ward” modifies only

“abusive sexual conduct,” and that state offenses relating to aggravated sexual abuse or

sexual abuse need not involve a minor victim to qualify as predicate convictions. In

support of its proffered interpretation, the government makes three arguments: First,

according to the rule of the last antecedent, the grammatical structure of the listed

conduct indicates that “involving a minor or ward” modifies only the last of the three

listed crimes because “a limiting clause or phrase . . . should ordinarily be read as

modifying only the noun or phrase that it immediately follows.” Barnhart v. Thomas,

540 U.S. 20, 26 (2003). Second, § 2252(b) identifies many predicate federal offenses

that do not involve minor victims, and Congress could not reasonably have limited the

scope of only the state offenses that qualify as predicates. Third, the listed state crimes

parallel the titles of three federal crimes listed as valid predicates: 18 U.S.C. § 2241

(aggravated sexual abuse), § 2242 (sexual abuse), and § 2243 (sexual abuse of a minor

or ward). The government also noted that our sister circuits that have considered this

question have uniformly adopted the government’s construction of the statute. See

United States v. Spence, 661 F.3d 194, 197 (4th Cir. 2011); United States v. Hubbard,

480 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Rezin, 322 F.3d 443, 447–48 (7th

Cir. 2003).

Although we find the statutory construction embraced by our sister circuits at

least plausible, this Circuit has already considered the proper construction of the

statutory language at issue, and we have held that the phrase “involving a minor or

 Case: 12-4481 Document: 44-2 Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 5
No. 12-4481 United States v. Mateen Page 6

1

The sentencing enhancement provisions in § 2252 and § 2252A contain identical language. Both

impose lengthened sentences on individuals who violate the statute and also have prior convictions “under

the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct

involving a minor or ward.” Because the “normal rule of statutory construction [is] that identical words

used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning,” Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific

Saipan, Ltd., 132 S. Ct. 1997, 2004–05 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted), we may apply the

Gardner panel’s statutory interpretation to § 2252.

ward” modifies aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, and abusive sexual conduct.

United States v. Gardner, 649 F.3d 437 (6th Cir. 2011). The prior panel’s statutory

interpretation is a binding holding because it was essential to its decision. See Town of

Smyrna v. Mun. Gas Auth. of Ga., 723 F.3d 640, 649 (6th Cir. 2013).

In Gardner, the panel considered whether a defendant’s prior conviction for

sexual battery under Virginia law triggered the application of a sentencing enhancement

under 18 U.S.C. §2252A(b)(1).1

 Analyzing the recidivist sentencing enhancement

provision, the panel articulated the issue as “whether Gardner has a prior conviction in

Virginia for sexual abuse involving a minor that should trigger the mandatory

minimum.” Gardner, 649 F.3d at 442. The panel then turned to the Taylor-Shepard

two-step process for determining when a prior offense is a predicate for a federal

sentencing enhancement: First, it reasoned that the statutory language alone did not

support an enhancement because the state statute underlying Gardner’s prior conviction

“does not require, as an element of the offense, that the complaining witness be a

minor.” Id. at 443. Next, it concluded that the indictment did not “establish[] that

Gardner’s prior conviction necessarily related to conduct involving a minor or ward.”

Id. at 444.

Although the panel did not discuss statutory construction at length, its

interpretation of the statute was essential to its decision. The panel clearly found that

Gardner’s prior conviction related to sexual abuse because “an element of sexual

battery—for which Gardner was convicted—is that the accused sexually abuses the

complaining witness.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). It would have had no

reason to reject the sentencing enhancement unless it had concluded that “involving a

minor or ward” modifies “sexual abuse.” Therefore, we cannot adopt the government’s

interpretation to the contrary.

 Case: 12-4481 Document: 44-2 Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 6
No. 12-4481 United States v. Mateen Page 7

Even if we did find the arguments advanced by the government convincing, we

are nonetheless bound by the statutory construction adopted in Gardner. See Sykes v.

Anderson, 625 F.3d 294, 319 (6th Cir. 2010) (“This panel is without authority to

overrule binding precedent, because a published prior panel decision remains controlling

authority unless an inconsistent decision of the United States Supreme Court requires

modification of the decision or this Court sitting en banc overrules the prior decision.”).

This panel cannot reject the Gardner panel’s decision merely because we believe the

issue was not well-considered:

We are not free to pick and choose the portions of a prior

published decision that we will follow and those that we will disregard.

Nor do we enjoy greater latitude in situations where our precedents

purportedly are tainted by analytical flaws . . . . Rather, we are bound by

the published opinions of previous panels, and this rule encompasses all

parts of a prior ruling that are properly construed as holdings rather than

dicta.

Grundy Mining Co. v. Flynn, 353 F.3d 467, 479 (6th Cir. 2003). Indeed, “concerns

about maintaining settled law are strong when the question is one of statutory

interpretation.” Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877, 899

(2007) (concluding that the interests underlying stare decisis were not as strong when

interpreting the Sherman Act because the Supreme Court treats it as a “common-law

statute”).

Nor is it relevant that the parties never briefed the proper construction of the

sentencing enhancement provision before this panel or the district court below.

“[Q]uestions which merely lurk in the record, neither brought to the attention of the

court nor ruled upon, are not to be considered as having been so decided as to constitute

precedents.” Rinard v. Luoma, 440 F.3d 361, 363 (6th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation

marks omitted) (concluding that a prior court “definitively answered the question

presented” because it interpreted the Prison Litigation Reform Act as requiring total

exhaustion of administrative remedies, and the interpretation was necessary to its

decision to dismiss a prisoner’s complaint that alleged both exhausted and unexhausted

 Case: 12-4481 Document: 44-2 Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 7
No. 12-4481 United States v. Mateen Page 8

claims). However, a court’s disposition of an issue is not dicta merely because the

parties failed to raise it. United States v. Wynn, 579 F.3d 567, 577 (6th Cir. 2009).

In Wynn, the government argued that a prior case, Bartee, addressed whether a

presentence report (“PSR”) could be used as a Shepard document only in dicta because

in the prior case the parties never argued that the PSR was an appropriate document to

consider. The Court reasoned:

Any failure of the government to raise a Shepard argument in Bartee

does not render Bartee’s PSR analysis dicta. . . . In Bartee, in order to

convince the district court to treat the defendant’s prior conviction as a

crime of violence, the government urged the district court to use common

sense to infer that since the defendant had sexual contact with Angela

while soliciting a minor, Angela must have been that minor and,

therefore, the sexual contact must have been with a minor. As the panel

noted, this inference could only have been drawn by considering the

underlying facts of conviction contained in the PSR. If it were

appropriate for the district court to look at the PSR and draw the

necessary inference, then the Bartee panel would have had no reason to

vacate the sentence. However, reliance on the PSR by the district court

would be appropriate only if the PSR were a Shepard document. Thus,

a necessary precursor to the panel’s decision to vacate the defendant’s

sentence in Bartee was its determination that a PSR is not a Shepard

document, regardless of whether the government specifically made a

Shepard argument.

Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Likewise, as discussed above, the

Gardner panel’s statutory construction is essential to its decision and binding on this

panel. Thus, it is immaterial whether the parties before the Gardner court raised the

issue, or whether the panel itself explained its analysis, because the panel’s statutory

interpretation was a “necessary precursor” to its decision. See Wynn, 579 F.3d at 577.

We must construe the sentencing enhancement provision as requiring that all three listed

state crimes involve a minor or ward.

III. MODIFIED CATEGORICAL APPROACH

Having settled the proper construction of the sentencing enhancement provision

at issue, we next determine whether Mateen’s Gross Sexual Imposition conviction

 Case: 12-4481 Document: 44-2 Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 8
No. 12-4481 United States v. Mateen Page 9

2

We have previously applied the Taylor-Shepard framework to sentencing enhancement

provisions in § 2252A(b)(1), Gardner, 649 F.3d at 443, and § 2252A(b)(2), Ferguson, 681 F.3d at 832,

and we now extend its application to the identical provision in § 2252(b)(2).

qualifies as a predicate offense. This court uses the modified categorical framework

articulated in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), and Shepard v. United

States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005), to assess whether a prior state conviction triggers a

sentencing enhancement provision2:

First, a sentencing court may look only to the statutory definition of the

prior offense, and not to the particular facts underlying that conviction,

to determine whether a prior conviction qualifies for a federal sentencing

enhancement. If the statutory definition embraces both qualifying and

non-qualifying crimes or is otherwise ambiguous, the court, second, may

look to the charging document, the terms of a plea agreement or

transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant in which the factual

basis for the plea was confirmed by the defendant, or to some comparable

judicial record of this information to determine whether the qualifying or

non-qualifying aspect of the statute was violated.

United States v. Ferguson, 681 F.3d 826, 832 (6th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks

and alterations omitted). Under this inquiry, the factual basis for the conviction is

relevant only insofar as it assists the court in identifying which alternative elements of

the statute were violated: “The modified approach thus acts not as an exception, but

instead as a tool. It retains the categorical approach’s central feature: a focus on the

elements, rather than the facts, of a crime. And it preserves the categorical approach’s

basic method: comparing those elements with the generic offense’s.” Descamps v.

United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276, 2285 (2013).

The district court correctly applied the Taylor-Shepard framework to conclude

that Mateen’s fourth-degree felony conviction for Gross Sexual Imposition did not

qualify as a state offense “relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive

sexual conduct involving a minor or ward.” 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2). First, the district

court correctly concluded that Ohio’s Gross Sexual Imposition statute is divisible

because it “embraces both qualifying and non-qualifying crimes” in that only some

subsections require a minor victim. R. 36 (D. Ct. Op. at 6) (Page ID #117). Second, the

 Case: 12-4481 Document: 44-2 Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 9
No. 12-4481 United States v. Mateen Page 10

district court examined the state-court Judgment Entry, R. 30-1 (Com. Pleas J. Entry)

(Page ID #77-81). While the Judgment Entry does not specify the subsection to which

Mateen pled guilty, it does indicate that Mateen entered a guilty plea to “Gross Sexual

Imposition, in violation of RC 2907.05, a felony of the fourth degree.” Id. (Page ID

#77). Subsections (A)(1)-(3) and (5) are felonies of the fourth degree, see

§ 2907.05(C)(1), and none of these subsections includes the age of the victim as an

element of the offense.

We may not consider factual material contained in the charging documents that

does not directly assist us in determining to which elements of a charge the defendant

pleaded guilty. Gardner, 649 F.3d at 444; United States v. Armstead, 467 F.3d 943, 949

(6th Cir. 2006) (“[We] limit our examination of the original indictments to the elements

of the charges that are essential to defendant’s plea of guilty.”); United States v. Arnold,

58 F.3d 1117, 1124 (6th Cir. 1995). The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the

narrow purpose of the factual review permitted under the modified categorical approach:

“It [is] not to determine what the defendant and state judge must have understood as the

factual basis of the prior plea, but only to assess whether the plea [is] to the version of

the crime . . . corresponding to the generic offense.” Descamps, 133 S. Ct. at 2284

(internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Soto-Sanchez, 623 F.3d 317,

320 (6th Cir. 2010) (reasoning that supplemental records may be used “only to determine

which crime within a statute the defendant committed, not how he committed the crime”)

(internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, to the extent that the transcript of the

state-court plea colloquy contains factual material identifying the victim of Mateen’s

prior conviction as an eight-year-old girl, the district court correctly disregarded that

information because it was not essential to Mateen’s guilty plea to fourth-degree felony

Gross Sexual Imposition or an element of the offense. See Gardner, 649 F.3d at 444

(disregarding references to the victim’s age during its analysis of whether the charging

documents established that “Gardner’s prior conviction necessarily related to conduct

involving a minor or ward”).

 Case: 12-4481 Document: 44-2 Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 10
No. 12-4481 United States v. Mateen Page 11

Thus, the district court correctly determined that Mateen’s prior state conviction

did not qualify as a predicate offense, and that the sentencing enhancement provision did

not apply to Mateen.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM Mateen’s sentence.

 Case: 12-4481 Document: 44-2 Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 11
No. 12-4481 United States v. Mateen Page 12

__________________

DISSENT

__________________

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Whether “involving a minor” modifies

all three terms in 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2) was not actually considered in United States

v. Gardner, 649 F.3d 437, 443 (6th Cir. 2011). For this basic reason, I disagree with the

majority that Gardner is controlling precedent. Considered on the merits as an issue of

first impression in this circuit, it is clear that “involving a minor” only modifies “sexual

conduct.” This court should therefore consider whether Mateen’s prior conviction

involved a crime of “sexual abuse,” not merely whether it was a crime of “sexual abuse

involving a minor.” In my opinion, Mateen’s gross sexual imposition conviction

qualifies as “sexual abuse,” and therefore, a sentence enhancement is appropriate. For

the following reasons, I respectfully dissent.

To be clear, I am not disregarding the Gardner court’s decision because the issue

of whether “involving a minor” modifies the other statutory terms was not wellconsidered, but rather because the issue was not considered or decided at all. If it had

been, surely the Gardner court would have made some reference, any reference,

however fleeting, to statutory construction or to its rationale for applying “involving a

minor” to all of the terms. The opinion is devoid of any discussion. If the court intended

to decide the issue, it surely would have explained, even passingly, why it reached an

interpretation at odds with every other circuit to have considered the issue. See, e.g.,

United States v. Spence, 661 F.3d 194, 197 (4th Cir. 2011) (reviewing the same terms

found in 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2)); United States v. Hubbard, 480 F.3d 341, 350 (5th

Cir. 2007) (reviewing the same terms found in 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(1)); United States

v. Rezin, 322 F.3d 443, 447–48 (7th Cir. 2003) (reviewing the terms found in 18 U.S.C.

§ 2252(b)(2)). Again, there is no discussion. We are not normally in the habit of

haphazardly creating circuit splits. Considering the lack of discussion or analysis on this

point in Gardner, there is no compelling reason to depart from the persuasive authority

of our sister circuits and to needlessly create a circuit split.

 Case: 12-4481 Document: 44-2 Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 12
No. 12-4481 United States v. Mateen Page 13

Everything points to one conclusion: as the issue was not contested, the Gardner

court simply did not consider the issue directly and it assumed that “involving a minor”

modified the term “sexual abuse.” As the majority correctly notes, “[Q]uestions which

merely lurk in the record, neither brought to the attention of the court nor ruled upon, are

not to be considered as having been so decided as to constitute precedents.” Rinard v.

Luoma, 440 F.3d 361, 363 (6th Cir. 2006). This is precisely why both parties at oral

argument acknowledged that Gardner had not addressed whether “involving a minor”

modified the other terms and therefore was not controlling. Construing an unconsidered

assumption, neither briefed nor argued by the parties, as the essential and binding

holding of a case makes bad law. The plain language and structure of the statute, the

grammatical rule of the last antecedent, and the parallel structure between the state and

federal offenses strongly indicate that “involving a minor” only modifies “sexual

conduct.” When reviewed de novo, as this issue should have been, this conclusion is

apparent

I am sensitive to the need to respect prior precedent and stare decisis, and I

acknowledge the present case tests the murky boundaries between dictum and holding

as well as the effect given to a judicial assumption. But it should be recalled that stare

decisis means “to stand by things decided.” Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009)

(emphasis added). The unaddressed issues in the present case were not actually decided

or implicitly held. This is not an instance where a court extensively discussed two out

of three prongs of a test and then determined in a conclusory fashion that the test was

satisfied, leaving subsequent courts to conclude that the third prong was also satisfied.

As there is no indication, apart from the majority’s unsupported inferential leap, that the

Gardner court addressed and decided that “involving a minor” modified all three terms

in 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2), Gardner’s unconsidered application of that understanding is

not binding precedent on this point. Moreover, because the uniform, careful, and

thorough reasoning adopted by our sister circuits is persuasive, I would adopt their

interpretation as the law of the Sixth Circuit, and accordingly, the sentence enhancement

in this case should have been applied. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

 Case: 12-4481 Document: 44-2 Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 13