FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J UL Y 12, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 0- 13 27 9

D.C. Dock et No. 8 :1 0- cr-0 00 55 -SCB -EAJ-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us

EMILIANO RAMI REZ-GARCIA

D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

(J ul y 12 , 20 11 )

Befo re HULL and BLACK, Cir cu it Ju dg es , and HUCK, Dis tri ct Ju dg e *

HUCK, Dis tri ct Ju dg e:

Honora ble Paul C. Huck, United States District Judge f or the Southern District of * Florida , sitti ng by

desig nation.App el la nt Em il ia no Ram ire z-Gar ci a ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to

im po se a 16 -le ve l en ha nc e men t t o h is ba se le ve l of fen se sc or e pu rs ua nt to U.S.

Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne (“ USSG”) § 2L1 .2(b )(1 )(A). The di st ric t co ur t ba se d th e

e n h a n c em en t on it s fin di ng th at th e Nor th Caro li na st at ut e un de r whi ch Ram ire z

Garci a p r e v i o us ly was co nv ic te d, N.C. Gen

. St at

. § 14 -2 02 .1, co ns ti tu te d “ se xu al

ab us e o f a m in or ” an d, th us , was a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” pu rs ua nt to th e Sen te nc in g

Gui de li ne s. Fo r th e reas on s di sc us se d be lo w, th e Co ur t affi rm s th e jud gm en t of the

di st ric t co ur t.

I.

The fact s m at eri al to th is ap pe al are u nd is pu te d. Ra m ire z-Gar ci a, a Me xi can

ci ti zen , il le ga ll y en te red th e U n i t e d St at es in May 20 00

. In 20 02
, Ram ire z-Gar ci a

was arre st ed in Nor th Caro li na an d ch arg ed wit h two co un ts of st at ut or y rap e an d two

co un ts o f t a k i n g in de cen t li be rti es wit h a ch il d. The la tt er ch arg es were br ou gh t

pu rs ua nt to N.C. Gen. St at . § 1 4- 20 2.1 , whi ch st at es :

(a) A pe rs on is gu il ty of ta ki ng i n d e c e nt li be rti es wit h ch il dr en if, bei ng 16 y ears of ag e or m or e an d at leas t fiv e y ears ol de r th an th e ch il d i n q ue st io n, h e ei th er: (1 ) W il lfu ll y ta ke s or at te m pt s to ta ke an y im

m or al
, im pr op er, or in de cen t li be rt i e s wit h an y ch il d of ei th er sex un de r th e ag e of 16 y ears for th e p ur po se of aro us in g o r gr at ifyin g s ex ua l d es ire ; o r (2 ) W il lfu ll y co m

m it s or at te m

p ts to co m

m it an y le wd or la sc iv io us act up on or wit h th e bo dy or an y

2pa rt or m em be r of th e bo dy of an y ch il d of ei th er se x

un de r th e ag e o f 16 y ears

.

Ram ire z-Gar ci a pl ed gu il ty to th e two co un ts of ta ki ng in de cen t li be rti es wit h

a ch il d, rece iv in g a se nt en ce of two co ns ecu ti ve te rm s of 20 –2 4 m on th s. The reco rd

do es no t rev eal ho w Ram ire z-G arci a vi ol at ed § 14 -2 02 .1. The in di ct m en ts fo r th e

two ch arg es were i de nt ic al , exc ep t fo r th e cas e n um be rs , and read as f

ol lo ws:

Th e ju ro rs fo r th e St at e up on th ei r oa th pr es en t th at o n o r ab ou t th e da te of of

fen se sh own an d in th e co un ty na m ed ab ov e th e de fen da nt n am ed ab ov e un la wfu ll y , wil lfu ll y , an d fel on io u s l y d id ta ke an d at te m pt to ta ke im m or al
, im pr op er, an d in de cen t li be rti es wit h th e c hi ld na m ed be lo w fo r th e pu rp os e of aro us in g an d gr at ifyin g se xu al de si re an d di d co m

m it an d a t t e mp t to co m

m it a le wd an d la sc iv io us act up on th e bo dy of th e ch il d na m ed be lo w. At th e ti m e of th is of

fen se , th e ch il d nam ed be lo w was un de r th e ag e of 16 y ears an d th e de fen da nt n a med a b o ve was

ov er 16 ye a r s of ag e an d at le as t fiv e y ears ol de r th an th e ch il d. Th e n am e o f th e ch il d i s (n am e red act ed ).

(em ph as is ad de d)

. The Tran sc rip t of Pl ea— whi ch is a fo rm , no t a n a c t u a l

tra ns cri pt —an d th e Ju dg em en t an d Co m m it m en t fo rm s in di cat e th at Ram ire z-Gar ci a
pl ed gu il ty to ta ki ng in de cen t li be rti es wi t h a c h i ld
, wit ho ut sp eci fy in g whe th er

Ram ire z-Gar ci a’s act io ns vi ol at ed th e fir st or se co nd pr on g of N.C. Gen

. St at

. § 14

-

2 0 2

. 1 ( a )

. The Tran sc rip t of Pl ea rev eal s th at th e St at e di sm is se d th e st at ut or y rap e

ch arg es in ex ch an ge fo r Ram ire z-Gar ci a’s gu il ty pl eas to ta ki ng i n d e c en t li be rti es

3wit h a ch il d. In 20 05
, up on hi s rel eas e fro m pr is on , im m ig rat io n au th or it ie s de po rte d

Ram ire z-Gar ci a to Mex ic o.

In 20 07
, Ram ire z-Gar ci a il le ga ll y reen te red th e Uni te d St a t e s

. Im m ig rat io n

au th or it ie s arre st ed hi m in Hil ls bo ro ug h Co un ty, Fl or i d a i n Ja nu ary 20 10

. In

co nn ect io n wit h th at arre st , Ram ire z-Gar ci a pl ed gu il ty to be in g an al ie n fo un d in th e

Uni te d St at es aft er ha vi ng b e e n co nv ic te d of ag gr av at ed fel on ie s an d de po rte d,

pu rs ua nt to 8 U.S.C. §§ 13 26 (a) an d (b ) ( 2 )

. The pa rti es ag reed th at th e is su e of

Ra m ir ez -G ar ci a’s pr io r Nor th Caro li na co nv ic ti on s wou ld be ad dr es se d at sente nc ing

.

Pri or to th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e Uni te d St at es Pro ba ti on Offi ce de te rm in ed

th at Ram ire z-Gar ci a’s ba se le ve l of fen se sc or e un de r th e gu id el in es was 8, pu rs ua nt

to USSG § 2L1 .2. Ram ire z-Gar ci a di d no t co nt es t th at cal cu la ti on

. He di d, ho wev er,

ob je c t to th e Pro ba ti on Offi ce’s reco m m en da ti on th at th e co ur t im po se a 16 -le ve l

en ha nc em en t pu rs ua nt to USSG § 2L1 .2(b )(1 )(A). The Pro b a t i o n Offi ce reas on ed

that Ram ire z-Gar ci a’s pr io r co nv ic ti on s fo r ta ki ng in de cen t li be rti es wit h a ch il d were

“ cri m es of v io le nc e” pu rs ua nt to th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s be cau se th ey in vo lv ed 1

Starting w ith a base le vel offe nse scor e of 8, U SSG § 2L 1.2(b)( 1) re quires that 1

I f the de fenda

nt previously

was de ported, or unla

wfully rema ined in the United States, afte r– (A) a conviction for a

felony that is (i) a drug

traff icking offe nse for

which the se ntence imposed exceede d 13 months; (ii) a cr ime of violence ; (iii) a fire arms off ense; (iv) a c hild pornog raphy

offe nse; (v) a

national sec urity

or

4“ se xu al ab us e of a m in or .” Co mb i n e d wit h red uc ti on s fo r acce pt an ce of 2

res po ns ib il it y , th e Pro ba ti on Offi ce cal cu la te d th at Ram ire z-Gar ci a’s to ta l of fen se

le ve l was 21

.

Ram ire z-Gar ci a o bjec te d t o t he Pro ba ti on Offic e’s reco m m en da ti on , arg ui ng

th at th e Nor th Caro li na of fen se of ta ki ng in de cen t li be rti es wit h a ch il d en co m pa ss ed

act s no t in cl ud ed in th e de fin it io n of “ se xu al ab us e of a m in or .” The Pro ba ti on Offi ce
reject ed th at arg um en t an d su bm it te d it s fin di ng s an d reco m m en da ti on s to th e di st ric t

co ur t. The di st ric t co ur t he ld a se nt en ci ng he ari ng , at whi ch Ram ire z-Gar ci a rep eat ed

hi s as se rti on th at th e Nor t h C aro li na co nv ic ti on s were no t “ cri m es of vi ol en ce”

be cau se th ey

di d n ot co ns ti tu te “ se xu al ab us e o f a m in or .”

terror ism offense; ( vi) a human tra fficking offe nse; or (vii) an alien smug g ling of

fense , incre ase by

16 levels . . . .

(empha sis added).

The Applica tion Notes to Subsection (b)(1) de fines “c rime of violenc e” a s 2

any

of the following offe nses under fede ral, state, or

local law: Murder , manslaug hter, kidnapping , ag g rava ted assault, for cible sex offe nses (including wher e conse nt to the conduct is not g iven or is not leg ally

valid, such as whe re c onsent to the conduc t is involuntary , incompetent, or c oerc ed), statutory rape , sexual abuse of a minor, r obbery , arson, e x tortion, ex tortionate extension of

cre dit, burg lary

of a dw elling, or

any other off ense unde r fe dera l, state, or loca l law that has a s an ele ment the use, a ttempted use, or threa tened use of phy sical for ce a g ainst the person of another

. (empha sis added).

5The two si de s al so di sp ut ed whe th er th e reco rd s av ai la bl e to th e di st ric t co ur t

de m on st rat ed th at Ram ire z-Gar ci a pl ed gu il ty to bo th pr on gs , (a)( 1) an d (a)( 2)
, of th e

Nor th Caro li na of

fen se of “ ta ki ng in de cen t li be rti es w i t h a ch il d.” See N.C. Gen

.

St at

. § 14 -2 02 .1(a ). The Sh ep ard -ap pr ov ed do cu m en ts fro m th e Nor th Caro li na 3

co nv ic ti on , t o whi ch Ram ire z-Gar ci a di d no t ob ject, co m pr i s e th e two in di ct m en ts ,

a fo rm Tran sc rip t of Pl ea, an d a Ju dg m en t an d Co m m it m en t fo r each cas e. On it s

face
, no do cu m en t affi rm at iv el y in di cat es whe th er Ram ire z-Gar ci a pl ed gu il ty to on e

or bo th of th e pr on gs of § 14

- 2 0 2

. 1 ( a )

. The do cu m en ts al so do no t su pp ly an y 4

sp eci fic fact ua l i nf

or m at io n re ga rd in g t he gro un ds for th e co nv ic ti on s.

The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu d e d th at th e Nor th Caro li na of fen se was “ a si m il ar

cri m e” to se xu al ab us e of a m in or

. The di st ric t co ur t al so de te rm in ed th at be cau se th e

do cu m en ts in di cat ed th at Ram ire z-Gar ci a ha d “ pl ed to th e e n t i r e st at ut e” it was

pr op er fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to fin d th at Ram ire z-Gar ci a ha d “ us ed
, at te m pt ed to us e,

or th reat en ed us e of ph y si cal fo rce ag ai ns t an ot he r,” se e App li cat io n Not es to USSG

§ 2 L1.2 (b (1 ), pu rs ua nt to th e se co nd pro ng of th e Nor th Caro li na st at ut e. See N.C.

Shepard v. U nited States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005). 3

Although the use of “ and” in the indictments see ms to indi cate Ramirez-Gar cia pled 4
g uilty to both prong s of § 14-202.1(a ), we need not de cide this issue bec ause a violation of either
prong constitutes “sexual abuse of a minor” as discusse d here in.

6Gen

. St at

. § 14 -2 02 .1(a )(2 ). Thu s, th e di st ric t f o u n d t h a t th e 16 -le ve l se nt en ci ng 5

en ha nc em en t was ap pr op ria te

.

II.

Th e C o u rt rev ie ws de no vo whe th er a de fen da nt ’s co nv ic ti on qu al ifi es a s a

“ cri m e of vi ol en ce” un de r th e Sen te nc in g G u id el in es

. Uni te d St at es v. Pal om in o

Garci a, 60 6 F .3d 13 17 , 13 26 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ).

The Co ur t ha s he ld th at “ se xu al ab us e of a m in or ,” as refe ren ced in § 2L1 .2 of

th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s, is “ a pe rp et rat or ’s ph y si cal or no n p h y si cal m is us e or

m al tre at m en t of a m in or fo r a pu rp os e as so ci at ed wit h se xu al gr at ifi cat io n.” Pad il la

Reyes v. Uni te d St at es , 24 7 F.3 d 11 58
, 11 63 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ). In Pad il la -Reyes, th e

Elev en th Ci rcu it de fin ed “ se xu al ab us e of a m in or ” us in g W eb st er’s Th i r d N ew

In te rn at io na l Dict io na ry an d Bl ack ’s Law Dict io na ry in or de r to gi ve th e wor ds th ei r
pl ai n m ean in g th at co m po rts wit h co m

m on us ag e. The Co u r t f o cu se d on “ th e

pe rp et rat or ’s in te nt in co m m it ti ng th e ab us e[,]

. . . to se ek li bi di na l gr at ifi cat io n.” 24 7

F.3 d at 11 63

. The Co ur t no te d th at th e pl ai n m ean in g of “ ab us e” in cl ud es “ act s th at

6

The Gove rnment does not ar g ue on appe al that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.1 ha s as an 5 element the use , attempted use, or threa tened use of phy sical for ce.

Other c ircuits, too, subscribe to purpose -ce ntric def initions of “se x ual abuse of a 6 minor.” See U nited States v. Sonnenberg , 556 F.3d 667, 671 ( 8th Cir. 2009) (“f ind[ ing] instructive” the Padilla- Rey es def inition of sex ual abuse of a minor) ; United States v. I zaguirre7in vo lv e ph y si cal co nt act be twee n th e pe rp et rat or an d th e vi ct im an d act s th at do no t.”

Id

.

Ram ire z-Gar ci a ur ge s th e Co ur t t o re co ns id er t he de fin it io n of “ se xu al ab us e

of a m in or ” th at it fo rm ul a t e d in Pad il la -Reyes. Ram ire z-Gar ci a as se rts th at , in

Pad il la -Reyes, th e Co ur t fai le d to de riv e a ge ne ric
, co ntem por ar y de fi nit ion of “ se xu al

ab us e of a m in or ,” as req ui red by th e Su pr em e Co ur t in Tay lo r v. Uni te d St at es , 49 5

U.S. 57 5 (1 99 0)

. Ram ire z-Ga r c i a co nt en ds we m us t lo ok to “ de fin it io ns of th e

[en um erat ed of

fen se ] ad op te d in th e va rio us st at es , cri m in al la w tre at is es , an d th e

Mo de l Pen al Co de to fo rm ul at e a ge ne ric
, co nt em

po rary de fin it io n of th e cri m e.” See

Pal om in o Garci a, 60 6 F.3 d at 13 27 –2 8 (d es cri bi ng th e Su pr em e Co u r t ’s pr oc es s in

Flore s, 405 F.3d 270, 271 (5th Cir. 2005) ( concluding that a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14- 202.1(a) (1) c onstitut ed “se x ual abuse of a minor” beca use “[g ]ratify ing or

arousing one’s se x ual desires in the a ctual or c onstructive pre sence of a c hild is sex ual abuse of a minor” ). L ikewise, the Four th Circuit has stated “[t] he cle ar f ocus of the phr ase is on the intent of the abuser —sexual gratification—not on the eff ect on the a

bused. Howe ver one sty les it, ‘sexual abuse’ is an intent-ce ntere d phrase ; the misuse of the child for sexual purposes completes the abusive a ct.” Dia z-I barr a, 522 F .3d at 350. The F ourth Circuit further explained that whether the child suffe red “ injury ” wa s not releva nt to the definition of “abuse ” bec ause “ once a defe ndant misuses the minor with the intent to achieve sexual gra tification, the ac t of abuse is complete, irr espec tive of whe ther the minor suff ere d some phy sical or psy cholog ical injury .” I d. An injury -foc used model could a llow perpe trators to avoid a sentenc ing e nhance ment “simply beca use they chose to c ommit t heir sexually -exploit ative ac t in the presenc e of or to a child too
y oung to understand the na ture of the defe ndant’s per verte d act, a

nd thus perhaps too y oung to suffe r some psy cholog ical injury .” I d. at 351. The D iaz-I barr a cour

t char acte rized that result as one that “is more than just anomalous; it is absurd.” Id

.

8Tay lo r fo r de riv in g a ge ne ric de fin it io n of th e tra di ti on al
, co m m on -la w of

fen se o f

bu rg la ry ).

W he n de te rm in in g whe th er a pr io r co nv i c t i on qu al ifi es as an en um erat ed

of fen se li st ed in th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s, th e Su pr em e Co ur t pr es cri be s th at co ur ts

us e a cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch to de te rm in e whe th er th e co nv ic te d cri m e fal ls wit hi n th e

ge ne ric
, fed eral de fin it io n of th e en um erat ed of fen se

. Tay lo r, 49 5 U.S. at 59 8– 60 2.

The Co ur t acco m

pl is he s th is fo rm al cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch by “ lo ok in g on ly to th e

st at ut or y de fin it io ns of th e pr io r of fen se s, an d n ot to th e p art ic ul ar fa ct s un de rlyin g

th os e co nv ic ti on s

. ” Id

. at 60 0. If th e sc op e of act s cri m in al iz ed by th e st at ut or y

de fin it io n of th e pr io r of

fen se is br oa de r th an th e ge ne ric de fin it io n of th e en um erat ed

of fen se , th en , un de r th e cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch
, th e pr io r co nv ic ti on do es no t fal l wit hi n

th e en um erat ed of

fen se

. In li m it ed ci rcu m st an ces , ho wev er, th e Co ur t m ay ta ke a

m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap p r o a c h t o de te rm in e “ whe th er a pl ea of gu il ty to [an

en um erat ed o ffen se ] de fin ed by a no ng en eri c st at ut e ne ces sa ril y ad m it te d el em en ts

of th e ge ne ric of

fen se ” by lo ok in g on ly to “ th e ch arg in g do cu m en t, th e te rm s of a pl ea

ag reem en t or tra ns cri pt of co ll oq uy be twee n jud ge an d de fen da nt in whi ch th e fact ua l

ba si s fo r th e pl ea was c o n f i r med by th e de fen da nt , or to so m e co m pa rab le jud ic ia l

reco rd of t hi s i nf

or m at io n.” She pa rd v. Un it ed Sta te s, 5 44 U.S. 13 , 26 (20 05 ).

9Ram ire z-Gar ci a’s as se rti on th at th e Pad il la -Reyes co u r t fai le d to pr op erl y

fo rm ul at e a ge ne ric de fin it io n of “ se xu al ab us e of a m in or ” is in co rrec t. W hi le co ur ts

sh ou ld co ns ul t st at e de fin it io ns , tre at is es , an d th e Mo de l Pena l Cod e whe n de riv in g

a ge ne ric de fin it io n of tra di ti on al
, co m m on la w of

fen se s li ke bu rg la ry an d ag gr av at ed

as sa ul t, th e pr es en t c a s e i n v o lv es “ se xu al ab us e of a m in or ,” whi ch is a no ntra di ti on al of

fen se

. Un i t e d St at es v. Baz a-M art in ez, 46 4 F.3 d 10 10 , 1 01 5 (9 th Ci r.

20 06 ). Fo r of

fen se s no t de ve lo pe d in th e co m m on la w, co ur ts de fin e a ge ne ric 7

of fen se ba se d on “ ‘the or di na ry , co nt em po rary, an d co m

m on m ean in g’ of th e

st at ut or y wor ds [
, ]” w h i ch in vo lv es “ co up l[i ng ] th e di ct io na ry de fin it io n of ‘abu se ’

wit h th e co m

m on u n de rs ta nd in g of ‘sex ua l’ an d ‘m in or .’ ” Id

. (in te rn al ci ta ti on s

om it te d) ; Uni te d St at es v. Lop ez-S ol is
, 44 7 F.3 d 12 01
, 12 06 –0 7 (9 th Ci r. 20 06 ). 8

I n Ba za-Martinez, the Ninth Circuit considere d the issue bef ore us a nd rea ched a 7
contra ry result, conc luding the N orth Carolina statute wa s broade r than the g ener ic def inition of “sexual abuse of

a minor” be cause it “focuse s on improper motivation rather than ‘c onduct that is abusive,’ suc h as psy cholog ical or phy sical har m.” 464 F.3d a

t 1016–17 (internal c itation omitted). Howeve r, the Ninth Circuit has also stated tha t “[t] he use of

y oung children f

or the
g ratifica tion of sexual desire constitutes an abuse . . . [t hat] constitut es maltreatment, no matter its form.” United States v. B aron- Medina, 187 F .3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1999).

This is not a matter of “ undere stimat[ ing] the talents and industry of district judg es” to 8 formulate a

g ener ic def

inition based on states’ def initions of sexual abuse of a minor, treatises, and the Mode l Penal Code. Palomino Garcia , 606 F.3d a t 1329. Ramirez-Garc ia direc ts the Court to numerous state off enses that a

rg uably are rela ted to sexual abuse of minors; howeve r, the var iation in the state offe nses is overwhe lming. While some states choose to punish only phy sical conta ct with minors, others punish a substantial rang e of non- phy sical ac ts toward minors, and while some re quire a perpe trator’ s phy sical pre sence in front of a minor, others also punish remote ac ts and communications. This is dissi milar to the issue that the Supreme Court fac ed in Tay

lor, wher e it arr ived on a g ener ic, fe dera l definition of burg lary based on ma

ny

10Oth er ci rcu it s ha ve ta ke n th is ap pr oa ch whe n de fin in g th e ph ras e “ se xu al ab us e of a

m in or ” as us ed in th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. So nn en be rg ,

55 6 F.3d 66 7, 67 0 (8t h Cir. 20 09 ); Uni te d Stat es v. Diaz-I ba rra, 5 22 F.3 d 34 3, 34 9

(4 th Ci r. 20 08 ); Uni te d St at es v. Izag ui rre- Fl or es , 40 5 F.3 d 27 0, 27 5 (5 th Ci r. 20 05 ).

In Pad il la -Reyes, o ur Co ur t i m pl em en te d t hi s sa m e ap pr oa ch , rel y in g o n d ic ti on ary

d efi ni ti on s to gi ve th e wor ds in “ se xu al ab us e of a m in or ” a pl ai n m ean in g t h a t

co m po rts wit h co m

m on us ag e. 24 7 F.3 d at 11 63

. Ram ire z-Gar ci a ci te s no au th or it y 9

in di cat in g th at th is Co ur t m ay reex am in e Pad il la -Reyes an d red efi ne “s ex ua l ab us e

of a m in or ” ut il iz in g th e an al y si s em pl oyed fo r tra di ti on al
, co m m on la w of

fen se s su ch

as as sa ul t and bu rg la ry

. Im po rta nt ly, Ram ire z-Gar ci a can no t cit e an y au th or it y th at

en ab le s th is Co ur t to ov ert ur n Pad il la -Reyes,wh ic h is bi nd in g pr eced en t, ex cep t up on

rela tively -similar state def initions of burg lary . I n Tay lor, the primar y difficulty was that some states’ de finitions of burg lary included ac tions taken toward boa ts, cars, a nd stores, in addition those ac tions toward homes. See 495 U .S. at 2154. Thus, in Tay lor, the base line conduct wa s the same, w hile here it is not . The c omplication involved in formulating a g ener ic def

inition of “sexual abuse of

a minor” ba sed on def

initions from the state s’ statutes and other source s would
prove ove rwhe lming, if not an impossibly inacc urate proce ss.

I n apply ing the Padilla-Rey es def inition t o a ca se involving F la. Stat. § 800.04(1), the 9 Court rec ently

noted that “Padilla-Reyes may not have f

ully define d the contours of

the g ener ic offe nse of ‘ sexual abuse of a minor’ to the extent necessa ry to resolve c ases involving offe nses under [statutes other than the Florida statute].” United States v. Casillas-Cantero, No. 10- 14238, 2011 WL 1834268, at *2 n.2 (11th Cir. May 13, 2011) (pe r cur iam). While the Padilla-Rey es court did indee d formulate a g ener ic def

inition of “sexual abuse of a minor,” the Casillas-Cantero court rig htly

notes that Padilla-Rey es did not determine a pplication of that def

inition t o all state statutes other than the Florida statute.

11en ba nc rev ie w or rev ers al by th e Su pr em e Co ur t. See Uni te d St at es v. Veg a-Ca st il lo
,

54 0 F .3d 12 35 , 12 36 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ).

Hav in g de te r mi n e d i n Pad il la -Reyes th at “ se xu al ab us e of a m in or ” is “ a

pe rp et rat or ’s ph y si cal or no np hysic al m is us e or m al tre at m en t of a m in or fo r a pu rp os e

as so ci at ed wit h se xu al gr at ifi cat io n,” th e Co ur t ne ed on ly en su re th at th e sc op e of th is

de fin it io n is no na rro wer th an th e sc op e of th e Nor th Caro li na of fen se of ta ki ng

in de cen t li be rti es wit h a ch il d. 24 7 F.3 d at 11 63

. The Co ur t pr ev io us ly ha s he ld th at

th e te rm “ se xu al ab us e of a m i n o r , ” a s us ed in 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 43 )(A), in cl ud es

th e co nd uc t pr os cri be d by § 14 -2 02 .1, th e Nor th Caro li na of fen se of ta ki ng li be rti es

wit h a ch il d. Bah ar v. Ash cro ft, 26 4 F.3 d 13 09
, 13 11 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ). It is cl ear th at

th e Nor th Caro li na st at ut e is no b r o a de r th an Pad il la -Reyes’ de fin it io n of “ se xu al

ab us e o f a m in or ” fo r th e p ur po se of USS G § 2 L1.2

.

“ Mi su se ” or “ m al tre at m en t” are exp an si ve word s t ha t i nc lu de m an y di ffer en t

act s. The Pad il la -Reyes de fin it io n d o e s no t li m it “ se xu al ab us e of a m in or ” to

in st an ces whe re th e pe r p e t r a t o r is pr es en t in fro nt of th e m in or , whe re th e m in or is

aware of th e ab us e, or whe re th e pe rp et rat or m ak es co nt act wit h th e m in or

. The Nor th

Caro li na st at ut e is si m il arl y br oa d, bu t no br oa de r. Nor th Caro li na co ur ts ha ve fo un d

th at th e fo ll owi ng pe rs on s vi ol at ed § 14 -2 02 .1: (1 ) a hi gh sc ho ol ba sk et ba ll co ach

who co ve rtl y

vi de o- ta pe d a st ud en t chan gi ng cl ot he s, Stat e v. McCl ees , 42 4 S.E.2d

1268 7 (N.C. Ct

. App

. 19 93 ); (2 ) a ka rat e in st ru c t o r w h o h a d se xu al ly ex pl ic it an d

gr ap hi c ph on e co nv ers at io ns wit h a pu pi l, St at e v . Every, 578 S.E.2d 64 2 (N.C. Ct

. App

. 20 03 ); (3 ) a m an who ga ve a se xu al ly gr ap hi c no te to hi s m in or ne ig hb or , whi ch

in cl ud ed req ue st s t ha t s he pa rti ci pa te in sex ua l ac ti vi ty wit h hi m , Sta te v. Mc Cl ary,

67 9 S.E.2d 41 4 (N.C. Ct

. App

. 20 09 ); an d (4 ) a m an who m as tu rb at ed in a be d nex t

to a y ou ng gi rl, St at e v . Ham m et t, 6 42 S.E.2d 45 4 (N.C. Ct . Ap p. 20 07 ). Alt ho ug h

no ne of th es e of

fen se s in vo lv ed co nt act wit h a m in or , an d so m e ev en di d no t in vo lv e

t h e pe rp et rat or ’s pr es en ce in fro nt of th e m in or , Nor th Caro li na st at e c o u r t s

de te rm in ed th at al l in vo lv ed ta ki ng in de cen t li be rti es wit h a ch il d. It is cl ear th at al l

th es e act s al so are en co m pa ss ed wit hi n th e Pad il la -Reyes ge ne ric
, fed eral

de fin it io n— th ey al l in v o l v e ei th er m is us e or m al tre at m en t of a m in or fo r th e

pe rp et rat or ’s se xu al gr at ifi cat io n. Ram ire z-Gar ci a po in ts to no N or th Ca ro lin a cases 1 0

in vo lv in g fact s th at do no t fit wit hi n th e co nt ou rs of th e br oa d Pad il la -R e y es

de fin it io n, no r an y hypo th et ic al si tu at io n th at wou ld vi ol a t e N.C. Gen

. St at

. § 14

-

20 2.1 whi le av oi di ng Pad il la -Reyes’ de fin it io n. Thu s, th e Co ur t fin ds th at th e

Both de finitions focus on the abuse r’s purpose , rathe r than a ny appar ent har

m to the 1 0 minor. Compare Diaz-I

barr a, 522 F .3d at 350 (“ [O] nce a defe ndant misuses the minor with the intent to achieve sexual gra tification, the ac t of abuse is c omplete, irre spective of whether the minor suffer ed some phy sical or psy cholog ical injury .”), w ith St ate v. Ha rtness, 391 S.E.2d 177, 180 (N.C. 1990) (noting a “[d]efenda nt’s purpose f

or committing such a ct is the g rava men of this offe nse; the par

ticular a ct per formed is immateria l”), a nd State v. McClary , 679 S.E.2d 414, 418 (N.C. App. Ct. 2009) (“ Neither a complete d sex act nor an of fensive touc hing of

the victim are require d to violate the statute.”)

.
13Pad il la -Reyes de fin it io n of “ se xu al ab us e of a m in or ” is at le as t as br oa d an d

in cl us iv e as § 1 4- 20 2.1

.

Fo r th e rea so ns gi ve n, t he Co ur t af fir m s t he jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

AFFIRMED

.

14