# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls
For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 15 09

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Don ni e Ray Sum

ne r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J op li n

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 20 , 20 15 Fil ed : M arch 21 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re COLLOTON, GRUEND ER, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Don ni e Su m

ne r pl ead ed gu il ty to rece ip t an d dis tr ib ut io n of ch il d po rn og rap hy,

in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2) . The d is tri ct co ur t co nc lu de d t ha t Su m ne r’s 1

19 89 Mi ss ou ri co nv ic ti on fo r de vi at e se xu al as sa ul t in th e fir st de gr ee tri gg ered a

se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t un de r § 22 52 (b )(1 ) an d se nt en ced Su m ne r to th e m an da to ry

Th e Hon or ab le Bet h Ph il li ps , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.m in im

um of 18 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Su m

ne r ch al le ng es hi s se nt en ce, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by de te rm in in g th at th e pr ev i o u s M i s s o ur i of fen se

su bjec te d h im

to th e en ha nc em en t. We affir m

.

I.

In 19 89

, Su m

ne r en te red an Alfo rd pl ea to th e cri m e of de vi at e se xu al as sa ul t
in th e fir st de gr ee, in vi ol at io n of sect io n 56 6.0 70 of th e Mi ss ou ri Rev is ed St at ut es

. Thi s s ta tu te pro vi de d:

A pe rs on co m

m it s th e cri m e of de vi at e se xu al as sa ul t in th e fir st de gr ee if he h as de vi at e se xu al in te rco ur se wit h a no th er p ers on to who m he is

no t m arri ed an d who is in cap aci ta te d or who is fo ur te en or fif te en y ears ol d.

Mo . R ev . S ta t. § 56 6.0 70 (1 98 9)

. Su m ne r rece iv ed a su sp en d e d se nt en ce wit h fiv e

y ears ’ pr ob at io n, wh ic h was di sc ha rg ed aft er o ne y ear.

In Ja nu ary 20 13

, in ve st ig at or s wit h th e So ut hwe st Mi ss ou ri Cy be rcri m es Task

Fo rce rem ot el y co nn ect ed to a co m pu te r th ro ug h th e Ares pe er-t o- pe er ne two rk

. The

in ve st ig at or s d o wnl oa de d fro m th e ta rg et co m pu te r two vi de o fil es th at de pi ct ed

pr ep ub es cen t m al es en ga ge d in a se xu al act

. In ve st ig at or s la te r id en ti fie d Su m ne r as th e su bs cri be r th ro ug h hi s IP ad dr es s. In ve st ig at or s su bs eq ue nt ly ob ta in ed a warra nt

to sea rch Su m

ne r’s res id en ce an d se iz ed a de sk to p co m pu te r, la pt op co m

pu te r, an d

a Seag at e ha rd dr iv e. A fo ren si c ex am in at io n rev eal ed fif te en vi de o fil es an d 11 4
im ag es de pi ct in g ch il d po rn og rap hy lo cat ed on th e de sk to p co m pu te r an d on e vi de o fil e co nt ai ni ng ch il d p or no gr ap hy loc at ed on th e la pt op co m pu te r.

S u m ne r was th en ch arg ed in a si ng le -co un t in di ct m en t wit h rece iv in g a n d
di st rib ut in g ch il d po rn og rap hy un de r 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2)

. Su m ne r pl ead ed gu il ty.
At th e ch an ge -o f-p le a he ari ng , th e m ag is tra te jud ge ad vi se d Su m ne r th at
, if he ha d a

qu al ifyin g pr io r of

fen se to tri gg er th e se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t un de r 18 U.S.C.

-2

-§ 22 52 (b )(1 ), th e ran ge of pu ni sh m en t fo r th e of fen se wou ld be fif

te en to fo rty y ears in pr is on

. Acco rd in g t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 52 (b )(1 ), if a pe rs on who vi ol at es 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2) “h a s a p r i o r co nv ic ti on

. . . un de r th e la ws of an y St at e rel at in g to

ag gr av at ed se xu al ab us e, se xu al ab us e, or ab us iv e se xu al co nd uc t in vo lv in g a m in or

or ward

. . . su ch pe rs on sh al l b e . . . im pr is on ed for no t les s th an 15 y ears no r m or e th an 40 y ears .” Pu rs ua nt to th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s r ep or t an d reco m m en da ti on , t he
di st ric t co ur t e n t e r e d an or de r acce pt in g Su m ne r’s gu il ty pl ea an d ad

jud gi ng hi m

gu il ty. The di st ric t co ur t th en or de red a pr es e n t e n c e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (PSR ),
whi ch co nc lu de d th at Su m ne r’s 19 89 Mi ss ou ri co nv ic ti on co un t e d a s a pr ed ic at e of fen se to en ha nc e th e st at ut or il y au th or iz ed m in im um se nt en c e t o f

i fte en y ears or 18 0 m on th s.

Su m ne r ob jecte d to th e PSR’s co nc lu si on on two gr ou nd s. He fir st arg ue d th at
th e fact s un de rlyin g hi s pr ed ic at e Mi ss ou ri of fen se di d no t su pp or t th e PSR’s fin di ng th at he ha d co m

m it te d an of

fen se “ rel at in g to ag gr av at ed se xu al ab us e, se xu al ab us e,

or ab us iv e se xu al co nd uc t in vo lv in g a m in or .” Su m ne r ne xt arg ue d th at th e

su sp en de d se nt en ce h e r e c e iv ed fo r th e Mi ss ou ri of fen se di d no t co ns ti tu te a

co nv ic ti on fo r pu r p o s e s of § 22 52 (b )(1 ). At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t reject ed

Su m ne r’s ob jecti on s, co nc lu di ng th at de vi at e s e x u a l as sa ul t in th e fir st de gr ee

qu al ifi ed as a pr ed ic at e of fen se an d th at hi s su sp en de d se nt en ce li ke wis e qu al ifi ed as

a co nv ic ti on

.

II.

On ap pe al

, Su mn e r c o n te nd s th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr oc ed ur al ly erre d by

fin di ng th at hi s Mi ss ou ri co nv ic ti on fo r de vi at e se xu al as sa ul t su ffi ced to tri gg er th e

se nt e n c i ng en ha nc em en t un de r 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (b )(1 ). He arg ue s th at th e di st ric t

co ur t sh ou ld ha ve co ns id ered th e fact s of th e un de rlyin g of fen se to de te rm in e whe th er hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on ac tu al ly in vo lv ed “ ag gr av at ed se xu al ab us e, se xu al ab us e, or ab us iv e se xu al co nd uc t i nv ol vi ng a m in or or wa rd .” 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (b )(1 ). Suc h

co ns id erat io n, Su m

ne r m ai nt ai ns , wou ld rev eal th at hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on aro se fro m

-3

-a co ns en su al act no t in vo lv in g fo rce or th reat s an d, th eref or e, no t in vo lv in g ab us e.

“ W he n rev ie win g a de fen da nt ’s se nt en ce, we m us t ‘ens ur e th a t t h e di st ric t co ur t

co m m it te d n o si gn ifi can t p ro ced ur al erro r . . . .’ ” Uni te d S ta te s v. Ha ge n , 64 1 F .3d

26 8, 27 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Gal l v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38

, 51 (2 00 7) ). In
de te rm in in g wh et he r a pr oc ed ur al erro r ha s o ccu rred , we rev ie w th e d is tri ct co ur t’s
fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r an d it s in te rp ret at io n an d ap pl i c a t i o n of st at ut or y

se nt en ci ng pr ov is io ns de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. W il li ams , 62 7 F.3 d 32 4, 32 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ); Uni te d S ta te s v. Weis , 48 7 F .3d 11 48 , 11 51 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7)

.

If a de fen da nt ha s a pr io r co nv ic ti on “ un d e r t he la ws of an y St at e rel at in g to

ag gr av at ed se xu al ab us e, se xu al ab us e, or ab us iv e se xu al co nd uc t in vo lv in g a m in or

or ward ,” th en a co nv ic ti on fo r rece ip t an d di st rib ut io n of ch il d po rn og rap hy u nd er 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2) tri gg ers an en ha nc ed se nt en ci ng ran ge of “ no t le ss th an 15

y ears no r mo re th an 40 y ears .” 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (b )(1 ). “ Bec au se [1 8 U.S.C. § 22 52 (b )(1 )] do es no t d e f i n e ag gr av at ed se xu al ab us e, se xu al ab us e, or ab us iv e

se xu al co nd uc t wit h a m in or or ward

, we gi ve th e te rm s th ei r ‘ord in ary, co nt em po rary,

co m m on m ean in g.’” Uni te d St at es v. So nn en be rg , 55 6 F.3 d 66 7, 67 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Perr in v. Uni te d St at es , 4 4 4 U

. S

. 3 7

, 42 (1 97 9) ). W e ev al ua te whe th er a 2

pr io r co nv ic ti on qu al ifi es as a pr ed ic at e of fen se tri gg eri ng a se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t by “ lo ok [in g] to th e fact of co nv ic ti on an d th e st at ut or y de fin it io n of th e pr io r of fen se

an d de te rm in [in g] whe th er th e fu ll ran ge of co nd uc t en co m pa ss ed by th e st at e st at ut e

The Su pr em e Co ur t rece nt ly cl ari fie d id en ti cal la ng ua ge in § 22 52 (b )(2 ), 2 ho ld in g t ha t “ ‘inv ol vi ng a m in or or ward ’ m od ifi es on ly ‘abu si ve se xu al co nd uc t,’”

su ch th at “ th e pr ov is io n ap pl ie s to pr io r st at e co nv i c t i o n s fo r ‘sex ua l ab us e’ an d ‘agg rav at ed se xu al ab us e,’ whe th er or no t th e co nv ic ti on s in vo lv ed a m in or or ward .” Lo ckh ar t v. Uni te d St at es , 57 7 U.S. ---, 20 16 W L 78 28 62

, at * 4

, *1 1 (2 01 6)

. The Lo ckh ar t di ss en t ack no wled ge d th at “ [n ]o o ne can po ss ib ly t hi nk (an d th e m ajor it y th eref or e do es no t try to arg ue ) th at th e di sp ut ed la ng ua ge m ean s so m et hi ng di ffer en t in § 22 52 (b )(2 ) th an in it s ne ig hb or an d m od el

, § 22 52 (b )(1 ).” Id

. a t * 17 n.4 (Kag an , J., di ss en ti ng ). Alt ho ug h we m ay ap pl y th e Co ur t’s ho l d i n g t o th is § 2 25 2( b) (1 ) cas e, we ne ed no t do so in li gh t o f ou r co nc lu si on th at Su m ne r’s pr io r

co nv ic ti on was fo r “ ab us iv e se xu al co nd uc t i nv ol vi ng a m in or .”

-4

-qu al ifi es to en ha nc e th e se nt en ce.” So nn en be rg , 55 6 F.3 d

. at 67 0. Howev er, “ [i]f th e

st at ut e cri m in al iz es bo th co nd uc t th at wou ld qu al ify a de fen da nt fo r an en ha nc em en t,

as well as co nd uc t th at wou ld no t do so , th e co ur t m ay r e f e r t o th e ch arg in g do cu m en t, th e te rm s of a pl ea ag reem en t, th e tra ns cr i pt of th e co ll oq uy, jury

in st ru ct io ns , an d ot he r co mpara bl e jud ic ia l reco rd s to de te rm in e th e ba si s fo r th e

gu il ty pl ea or ve rd ic t.” Id

. (ci ti ng Sh ep ar d v. Uni te d St at es , 54 4 U.S. 13

, 26 (2 00 5) ).

The 19 89 ve rs io n of the Mi ss ou ri st at ut e un de r whi ch Su m ne r was co nv ic te d
of fir st -d eg ree de vi at e se xu al as sa ul t req ui red th at he “ ha [d ] de vi at e se xu al

in te rco ur se wit h an ot he r pe rs on to wh o m he [wa]s no t m arri ed an d who [wa]s
in cap aci ta te d or who [wa]s fo ur te en or fif te en y ears ol d.” Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 56 6.0 70 (1 98 9)

. “ Dev ia te se xu al in te rco ur se ,” in tu rn , en co m pa ss ed “ an y se xu al act in vo lv in g th e g en it al s of on e pe rs on an d th e m ou th

, to ng ue , ha nd

, or an us of a no th er p ers on .”

Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 56 6.0 10 .1(2 ) (1 98 9)

. Bec au se th es e te rms c r i mi n a li zed co nd uc t
i nv ol vi ng ei th er an in cap aci ta te d pe rs on or a m in or , th e di st ric t co ur t r i g h t l y

co ns id ered th e ch arg i n g do cu m en t. Se e Sh ep ar d

, 54 4 U.S. at 16

. In th is cas e, th e ch arg in g do cu m en t was the in fo rm at io n con ta in in g th e so le co un t to whi ch Su m ne r pl ead ed gu il ty. Tha t co un t al le ge d th at Su m ne r “ ha d de vi at e se xu al in te rco ur se wit h [th e vi ct im ], to who m th e de fen da nt was no t m arri ed

, who was th en 14 o r 15 y ears ol d.” Und er ou r cas e la w, th is co nv ic ti on cl earl y sa ti sf ie s th e req ui rem en t un de r 18

U.S.C. § 22 52 (b )(1 ) of a pr io r co nv ic ti on “ un de r th e la w s o f an y St at e rel at in g to

. . . ab us iv e se xu al co nd uc t in vo lv in g a m in or or ward .” Se e W ei s , 48 7 F.3 d at 11 52 (co nc lu di n g th at a pr io r co nv ic ti on th at in vo lv ed to uc hi ng a m in or “ wit h th e in te nt

to ha ve se xu al in te rco ur se ” fit “ well wit hi n th e br oa d m ean in g of ‘re l a ti ng

to

. . . ab us i v e s e x u a l co nd uc t’” wit h a m in or an d th us sa ti sf ie d 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 2( b) (1 )).

Des pi te th e de ta il s co nt ai ne d in th e ch arg in g do cu m en t, Su m ne r no ne th el es s

arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by no t co ns i de rin g th e un de rlyin g fact s of hi s

co nv ic ti on be cau se th os e fact s wou ld rev eal a co ns en su al act no t in vo lv in g fo rce or

-5

-th reat s. The refo re, he co nt in ue s, th e Gov ern m en t fai le d to s h o w a n y ab us e on 3

Su m ne r’s pa rt. Thi s arg um en t pr ov es un av ai li ng

. As no te d ab ov e, th e di st ric t co ur t

pr op erl y co nf

in ed it s in qu iry to a li m it ed cl as s of do cu m en ts

. Se e S on ne nb er g , 55 6

F.3 d at 67 0 (ap pr ov in g ap pl ic at io n of th e cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch ). Eve n if th e di st ric t

co ur t ha d be en ab le to co ns id er th e un de rlyin g fact s, ho wev er, ou r ci rcu it do es no t

req ui re “ ab us e” fo r th e p ur po se of ap pl y in g t he § 2 25 2( b) (1 ) en ha nc em en t t o e nt ai l
fo rce or th reat s. Se e, e. g

. , L i n n g re n , 65 2 F.3 d at 87 0- 71 (fi nd in g Mi nn es ot a

c o nv ic ti on fo r se xu al co nt act wit h a m in or co m m it te d wit h se xu al in te nt sa ti s f i e d § 22 52 (b )(1 )); So nn en be rg , 55 6 F.3 d at 67 0 (fi nd in g Io wa co nv ic ti on fo r la sc iv io us

act s wit h a ch il d no t in vo l v i n g t o u c hi ng sa ti sf ie d § 22 52 (b )(1 )); W

ei s , 48 7 F.3 d at
11 51 -5 2 (fi nd in g Io wa co nv ic ti on fo r as sa ul t wit h in te nt to co m m it se xu al ab us e—n o in jury sa ti sf ie d § 22 52 (b )(1 ) ev en th ou gh th e ch arg in g do cu m en t sp eci fie d th e as sa ul t

to co ns is t of “ to uc h[ in g], wi th th e in te nt to ha ve se xu al in te rco ur se ” wit h a m in or );

se e al so St at e v. W

il li ams , 62 8 S.W .2d 94 7, 94 9 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 82 ) (d es cri bi ng th e

sa m e it erat io n of th e Mi ss ou ri st at ut e at is su e he re as “ req ui r[i ng ] no em pl oym en t or th reat of ph y si cal fo rce

. . . be cau se th e de si gn of th e st at ut e is to id en ti fy as as sa ul ti ve

c ert ai n be ha vi or

. . . no t by th e m an ne r of co m m is si on bu t by th e id en ti ty of t h e vi ct im ”). Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t c o u rt di d no t err by co ns id eri ng th e ch arg in g d o cu m en t an d no t th e fact s un de rlyin g Su m ne r’s Mi ss ou ri co nv ic ti on

. S e e So nn en be rg , 55 6 F .3d at 6 70

.

III.

Fo r th e rea so ns set for th ab ov e, we affi rm Su m ne r’s se nt en ce.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

3 Alt ho ug h Su m

ne r ob jecte d be fo re th e di st ri c t co ur t th at th e su sp en de d

se nt en ce he rece iv ed fo r th e Mi ss ou ri of fen se di d no t co ns ti tu t e a “ co nv ic ti on ” fo r pu rp os es of § 22 52 (b )(1 ), h e c o n c e d es th is po in t on ap pe al

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. St or er , 41 3 F .3d 91 8, 9 21 -2 2 (8 th Cir . 20 05 ).

-6

-