FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MARCH 6, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 13576 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 0 8 6 - CR- FTM - 2 9 - SPC U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s G A R Y M A R K H A R D I N G , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 6, 2006) B efo re C A RN E S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: G a ry M a r k H a r d in g , w h o p le d g u ilty to p o s s e s s in g c h ild p o rn o g r ap h y in2

v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 4 ) a n d ( b ) ( 2 ) , ap p e a ls h is 1 2 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e . H e c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in e n h a n c in g h is s e n te n c e b a s e d o n h is p ri o r co n v i ct i o n s fo r “ l ew d sex u al b att ery” i n F l o ri d a st at e co u rt . S p eci fi cal l y, H a r di ng a r gue s tha t( 1) hi s l e w d s e xua l ba tt e ry c onvi c t i ons w e r e notqua l i f y i ng o f f e n s e s u n d e r§ 2 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) , a n d ( 2 ) th e ap p lic a tio n o f § 2 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) v io la te d h is F i f th a nd S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s , be c a us e the G ove rnm e ntf a i l e d t o a l l e ge i n the I ndi c tm e nt–a nd H a r di ng di d nota dm i t–the f a c tof the pr i orc onvi c t i ons . F i ndi ng n o e rr o r , w e a f

f i r m. I. Q u a l i fy i n g O ffen se W e r e v ie w d e n o v o w h e th e rH a r d in g ’s p r io rc o n v ic tio n s c o n s titu te q u a lif y in g o f f e n s e s u n d e r§ 2 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) . See U ni ted Stat es v. Jam es , 430 F . 3d 1150, 1153 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( r e vi e w i ng “ de nov o w he the ra c onvi c t i on i s a ‘ vi ol e nt fe l on y’ or a ‘ se ri ou s drug o ff ense ’ w i thi n the m ea ni ng of [18 U . S . C . ] § 9 24 (e )” ), pet i t i on f or ce rt. f i l ed , (U . S . F eb . 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 ) (N o . 0 5 -9 2 6 4 ). G en eral l y, § 2 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) p r o v id e s th a t ap e r s o n w h o , lik e H a r d in g , v io la te s § 2 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 4 ) “s h a ll be fi ned u nd erthi s t i t l e or i m pri soned n otm ore than 1 0 yea rs , or bo th . . . . ” H ow e ve r , i f

tha tpe r s on ha s a pr i orc onvi c t i on unde rthi s c hapt e r , c hapt e r71, c hapt er 1 0 9 A , or c h ap t e r 1 1 7 , o r u n d e r s e c t i o n 9 2 0 o f Ti t l e 1 0 ( a r t i c l e 1 2 0 of t he U n if o r m C o d e o f M i l i t ary Ju st i ce), o r u n d er th e l aw s o f an y S t ate re l at i ng t o agg ra vat ed se xu al abuse, se x u al ab u se , or abusi ve se xu al3

cond ucti nv ol vi ng a m i no r o r w ar d . . . such pers on shal l be fi ned un d er th is t i t l e a nd i m pri soned for no tl es s than 1 0 yea rs no r m ore th an 2 0 years. 18 U . S . C . § 2252( b) ( 2) . T he appl i c a t i on of thi s e nha nc e m e ntw a s e rr or , H a r di ng a r gue s , be c a us e hi s s t a t e l a w c onvi c t i ons f orl e w d s e xua l ba tt e ry a r e not nece ss ar i l y c on vi ct i on s “ un der the l aw s of a ny S t at e r el at i ng t o agg ra vat ed se xu al ab u s e , s e x u a l ab u s e , o rab u s iv e s e x u a l c o n d u c t in v o lv in g a m in o ro rw a r d ” w ith in the m e a ni ng of

§ 2252( b) ( 2) . A c c or di ng t o H a r di ng, the quot e d s t a tut ory l a ngua ge i s bes tun ders t oo d b y turni ng t o 1 8 U . S . C . § 2 24 3, w hi ch cr i m i nal i ze s “ [s ] exual abus e of a m i nororw a r d. ” U nde r§ 2243( a ) , the m i norbe i ng abus e d m us tnot on l y be a tl ea st12 and you ng erthan 1 6, bu tm ustal so be “ atl ea stfour ye ar s youn ger” than the abuser. 18 U . S . C . § 2 24 3(a) . N othi ng i n the re cord w e a re perm i tt ed t o con sul t , H ar di ng ar gu es , es t abl i shes thathe w as atl ea stfour ye ar s o ld e rth a n th e v ic tim a t th e tim e o f th e le w d s e x u a l b a tte ry . W e d is a g r e e w ith H ard i n g ’ s an al ysi s. In det erm i ni ng w hether apri or conv i ct i on i s aqu al i fy i ng offe nse und er § 2 25 2(b)(2), a s ent enci ng courti s “ general l y l i m i t ed t o exam i ni ng the st atut ory d efi n i t i o n , ch arg i n g d o cu m en t , w ri tt en p l ea ag reem en t , tran scri p to f p l ea co l l o q u y, and any expl i ci tfa ctual fi nd i ng by the tri al j ud ge t o w hi ch the defendantas se nt ed. ” Sh epard v. U

ni ted Stat es , 544 U . S . 13, __, 125 S . C t . 1254, 1257, 161 L . E d. 2d4

205 ( 2005) ( appl y i ng the rul e t o the s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e ntc ont a i ne d i n 18 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( e ) ) ; T

aylor v. U

ni ted Stat es , 495 U . S . 575, 602, 110 S . C t . 2143, 2 1 6 0 , 1 0 9 L . E d . 2 d 6 0 7 (1 9 9 0 ) (i n d et erm i n i n g w h eth er a p ri o r co n v i ct i o n i s a q u a lif y in g o f f e n s e u n d e r§ 9 2 4 ( e ) , s e n te n c in g c o u r t is p r o h ib ite d f r o m d e lv in g in to p a r tic u la rf

a c ts d is c lo s e d b y th e r e c o r d o f c o n v ic tio n , b u t m u s t n o r m a lly lo o k o n ly to th e f a c t o f c o n v ic tio n a n d th e s ta tu to ry d e f in itio n o f th e p r io ro f

f e n s e ) ; U ni ted Stat es v. McC utchen , 419 F . 3d 1122, 1128 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( c onc l udi ng tha tthe rul e out l i ne d i n Sh ep a rd “ appl i e s t o c a s e s . . . i nvol vi ng appl i c a t i on of § 2 25 2(b)(2)”) . H er e, the C ri m i nal Inform at i on i ntrodu ce d atse nt enci ng char ged H a r di ng w i th thr e e c ount s of l e w d s e xua l ba tt e ry “ upon . . . a c hi l d unde rthe a ge of 1 6 y e a r s ,” in v io la tio n o f F la . S ta t. 8 0 0 .0 4 ( 3 ) ( 1 9 9 5 ) . U n d e rth a t p r o v is io n , a pe r s on w ho “ [ c ] om m i t s a n a c tde f i ne d a s s e xua l ba tt e ry unde rs . 794. 011( 1) ( h) upon a ny c hi l d unde rthe a ge of 16 y e a r s . . . w i thoutc om m i tt i ng the c r i m e of s e xua l ba tt e ry , c om m i t s a f e l ony of the s e c ond de gr e e . . . . ” F l a . S t a t . § 800. 04( 3) (199 5). S ec t i on 79 4. 01 1(1)(h) s t at es : “ ‘ S exual batt ery’ m ea ns oral , anal , or vagi nal penetra t i on by, or un i on w i th, the se xu al organ o f a no ther or the anal or vagi nal pe ne tr a t i on of

a nothe rby a ny othe robj e c t ; how e ve r , s e xua l ba tt e ry doe s not i nc l ude a n a c tdone f

ora bona f

i de m e di c a l purpos e . ” F l a . S t a t . 794. 011( 1) ( h) ( 1 9 9 5 ) . C o u n ts O n e a n d T h r e e o f th e C r im in a l I n f

o r m a tio n c h a r g e d H a r d in g w ithSimi larly, § 2244, entitled “Abusive sexual contact,” prohibits knowing ly eng ag ing in or 1 causingsexual contact with or by another person if doingso would violate “subsec tion (a) of section 2243 of this titl e had thesexual contact been a sexual act . . . .” 5 c om m i tt i ng s e xua l ba tt e ry on the c hi l d “ by pl a c i ng hi s pe ni s i n uni on w i th or penetra t i ng her vagi na, ” a nd C ou ntT w o charged hi m w i th com m i tt i ng se xu al b a tte ry “b y p e n e tr a tin g h e rv a g in a w ith h is f in g e r ( s ) .” N otw i thst andi ng the foregoi ng , H ar di ng cont ends thathi s c on vi ct i on s und er § 8 00 . 04 (3) a re no tconv i ct i on s “ un der the l aw s of a ny S t at e r el at i ng t o agg ra vat ed s e xua l abus e , s e xua l abus e , orabus i ve s e xua l c onduc ti nvol vi ng a m i nororw a r d” un der § 22 52 (b)( 2). In order t o u nd er st and w hatconst i tut es “ abusi ve se xu al c onduc ti nvol vi ng a m i nor , ” H a r di ng a r gue s , w e m us tl ook t o 18 U . S . C . § 2243, because § 22 52 (b)( 2) “ prov i des no d ef i ni t i on s. ” S ec t i on 22 43 , ent i t l ed “ S exual abus e of a m i nororw a r d, ” m a ke s i ta f e de r a l c r i m e t o e nga ge know i ngl y i n a s e xua l a c tw i th a nothe rpe r s on w ho i s ( 1) a tl e a s t12 buty ounge rtha n 16, a nd ( 2)

“ atl ea stfour ye ar s y ou ng erthan the pers on so engagi ng . ” 18 U . S . C . § 2 24 3(a) . 1 T hu s, H ar di ng concl ud es , for hi s l ew d sexual batt ery c on vi ct i on s t o q ual i fyun der § 2 25 2(b)(2), the m i no r- vi ct i m m usthave been atl ea stfour ye ar s y ou ng erthan H ar di ng atthe t i m e of the cond uctun derl yi ng the conv i ct i on s. T hi s a ge di ff er ence w as no tes t abl i shed atse nt enci ng , H ar di ng expl ai ns, because i tw as no tan es se nt i al el em entof an offense un der § 80 0. 04 (3), w as no tchar ged i n the C ri m i nal6

I n f o r ma t i o n , a n d w a s n o ta d mi tt e d b y h i m. W e r e je c t H a r d in g ’s a tte m p t to e n g r a f t th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f

§ 2 2 4 3 o n to § 2 25 2(b)(2). W hi l e § 22 43 m ay“ defi ne” the fe dera l cr i m e of “ S exual abuse of a m in o r ,” it is n o t ad e f

in itio n a l p r o v is io n ap p lic ab le to § 2 2 5 2 . See 1 8 U . S. C. § 2243( a ) . I nde e d, § 2252, unl i ke § 2243, i s c odi f i e d i n c hapt e r110 of

T i t l e 18, P a r t1. T he de f

i ni t i ons appl i c abl e t o c hapt e r110 a r e l oc a t e d i n 18 U . S . C . § 2256, w hi c h de f

i ne s “ m i nor ” a s “ a ny pe r s on unde rthe a ge of e i ght e e n y e a r s , ” a nd co n tain s n o ag e d iffe re n ce re q u irem en t sim il arto § 2 2 4 3 (a )( 2 ). T h u s, H ar d in g ’s ap p r o a c h w o u ld c r e a te a c o n f lic t b e tw e e n th e d e f

in itio n o f “m in o r ” ap p lic ab le to § 2252 thr ough § 2256, a nd the de f i ni t i on of m i norH a r di ng dr a w s f r om § 2243, w hi c h r e f

e r s t o a pe r s on w ho i s a tl e a s t12 buty ounge rtha n 16 ( a nd a tl e a s tf our y e a r s y o u n g e rth a n th e ab u s e r ) . See 18 U . S . C . §§ 22 43 (a ), 22 52 (b), 22 56 (1). S uch an i n t erp ret at i o n can n o tb e sq u ared w i th o u r o b l i g at i o n t o read th e st atu t e as a w h o le . See D olan v. U

ni ted Stat es P ostalServ . , __ U . S . __, __ S . C t . __, __ L . E d. 2 d __ , N o . 0 4 - 8 4 8 , s lip o p . a t 4 ( F e b . 2 2 , 2 0 0 6 ) . F urtherm ore, § 2 25 2(b)(2) al re ady a cc ou nt s f or pri or conv i ct i on s und er § 2 2 4 3 b y e n c o mp a s s i n g “ a p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n u n d e r. . . c h ap t e r1 0 9 A . ” 1 8 U . S. C. § 2 25 2(b)(2). W hen add re ss i ng st at e l aw conv i ct i on s, ho w ever , § 2 25 2(b)(2) uses b r o a d e rl a n g u a g e , r e a c h i n g a n y c o n v i c t i o n u n d e ra s t a t e l a w “ r e la tin gto . . .7

abusi ve se xu al cond ucti nv ol vi ng a m i no r . . . . ” I d. ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . W e f i nd th a t H a r d in g ’s c o n v ic tio n s f o rle w d s e x u a l b a tte ry u n d e rF la . S ta t. § 8 0 0 .0 4 ( 3 ) f a ll w e ll w ith in th e p la in m e a n in g o f th is la n g u a g e , a n d a r e s u p p o r te d b y th e c h a r g e s in th e C r im in a l I n f

o r m a tio n . See M

cC utchen , 419 F . 3d a t1127 ( C ongr e s s ’ s us e of

“ r e l a t i ng t o” i n § 2252( b) ( 2) “ i ndi c a t e s i t s i nt e ntt o a l l ow a s e nt e nc i ng c our tt o l ook beyond the m er e e l em ent s of apri or st at e c on vi ct i on ” i n d et erm i ni ng w hether c o n v ic tio n tr ig g e r s e n h a n c e m e n t) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . R ez in , 3 2 2 F .3 d 4 4 3 , 4 4 8 ( 7 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( “F r o m th e s ta n d p o in t o f r a tio n a l p e n a l p o lic y . . . w h a t is im p o r ta n t is th e co n d u ctth atg av e ri se t o th e p ri o r co n v i ct i o n , n o tth e el em en t s o f th e o ffen se u n d e r ly in g th a t c o n v ic tio n .” ) ; accord Jam es , 430 F . 3d a t1155 ( e xpl a i ni ng tha tf or st at e l aw offe nse t o con st i tut e “ se ri ou s drug o ff ense ” und erA rm ed C ar ee r C ri m i nal A ct, o r “A C C A ,” lan g u ag e o f s tate statu te n ee d n o t ex ac tl y m atch A C C A ’s d e f in itio n o f “s e r io u s d ru g o f

f e n s e ,” b u t m e r e ly f

a ll w ith in th a t d e f

in itio n ) ; c f. U ni ted Stat es v. P ad i l la-R ey es , 247 F . 3d 1158, 1164 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( c onc l udi ng th a tp l a i n me a n i n g o f

p h r a s e “ s e x u a l ab u s e o f a mi n o r ” i n 8 U . S. C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( A ) in c lu d e s a v io la tio n o f F la . S ta t. 8 0 0 .0 4 ( 1 9 8 7 ) ) ; U ni ted Stat es v. Sm ith , 36 7 F . 3d 74 8, 75 1 (8th C i r. 20 04 ) ( per c uri am ) ( “ A l tho ug h the t erm “ se xu al e x p lo ita tio n o f

c h ild r e n ” is n o t d e f

in e d in th e s ta tu te , th e te r m u n a m b ig u o u s ly r e f e r s to a n y c r im in a l s e x u a l c o n d u c t w ith a c h ild ) . B u t s e e U n ite d S ta te s v . G a lo ,H ardi n gc o nt en d s th ate v eni f w edi s agre ew i thh i m , w emu s ta p p ly th er u l eo f l e n i ty. 2 “[W ]hen there a

re two rational re ading s of a criminal statute, one har sher than the other, the rule of lenity dictates that weareto choose the harsher one only when Congress ha s spoken in languag e that is clear and def inite.” United States v. Inc lema , 3 63 F .3 d 1 17 7, 11 82 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 4) (p er curiam) (internal quote s and citation omitted). For the re asons explained above, H ardinghas not proposed a rational reading of

§ 2252(b)( 2 ), and w e therefore nee d not apply the rule of

lenity . See United States v. Camacho-

Ibarquen , 4 10 F .3 d 130 7, 13 15 (1 1th Cir .) (p er curi am) (“We wil l app ly therule of lenity only if the provision beingconstrued is still ambiguous a fter a pplication of normal r

ules of construc tion.”), cert. denied, _ _ U .S. __ , 1 25 S. Ct . 4 57 , 1 63 L . E d. 2d 34 7 ( 20 05 ). Ha rdingalso asser ts that, t o th e ex tent § 2252(b)( 2) is “without definition,” it is void for vagueness. Heraised this argument for the f

irst t ime in his reply

brief, a nd it is there forewaived. See U nited States v. Dicter , 198 F.3d 1284, 1289 ( 11th Cir. 1999). 8 239 F . 3d 572, 582 ( 3r d C i r . 2001) ( “ I ti s the e l e m e nt s of a gi ve n s t a tut e , notthe cond uctthatvi ol at es i tthatdet erm i nes i f the st atut e r el at es t o the se xu al expl oi t at i on of chi l dren. ”) . 2 II . A l m en d arez -T orre s H a r d in g n e x t a r g u e s th a t th e ap p lic a tio n o f § 2 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) v io la te d h is F if th a nd S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s , be c a us e hi s l e w d s e xua l ba tt e ry c onvi c t i ons w e r e not char ged i n the Indi ctm entor adm i tt ed by hi m . A s H ar di ng ra i se d h i s c on st i tut i on al o b je c tio n s b e f

o r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, w e r e v ie w th e m d e n o v o . U ni ted Stat es v. C a n de la r io , 24 0 F . 3d 13 00 , 13 06 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). I n A lm enda rez- T

orres v . U

ni ted Stat es , 523 U . S . 224, 228, 118 S . C t . 1219, 1223, 140 L . E d. 2d 350 ( 1998) , the S upr e m e C our t“ he l d tha tthe gove rnm e nt need no tal l ege i n i t s i nd i ctm entand n ee d n otprov e bey on d a re as on abl e dou btthat a de f e nda ntha d pr i orc onvi c t i ons f ora di s tr i c tc our tt o us e thos e c onvi c t i ons f or9

pu rposes of enhanci ng a s ent ence . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . M

a rs e ille , 377 F . 3d 1249, 1 2 5 7 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , ce rt. deni ed , 543 U . S . 1013, 125 S . C t . 637, 160 L . E d. 2d 480 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . A lth o u g h H a r d in g c o n te n d s th a t A lm enda rez- T orres h a s b e e n “g r a v e ly w o u n d e d ” b y s u b s e q u e n t S u p r e m e C o u r t c a s e s , h e c o n c e d e s w e h a v e h e ld th a t it r e m a in s g o o d la w . Se e , e . g. , U ni te d State s v . G i bs on , 4 3 4 F .3 d 1 2 3 4 , 1 2 4 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( “T h o u g h w o u n d e d , A lm en da rez-T o rres st i l l m ar ches on and w e a re o r d e r e d t o f

o l l o w . W e w i l l j o i n th e f u n e r a l p r o c e s s i o n o n l y a f t e rth e Su p r e me C our tha s de c i de d t o bury i t . ” ) . E ve n s o, H a r di ng a r gue s , hi s c a s e i s di f f e r e nt be c a us e , unl i ke the de f

e nda nti n A lm enda rez- T orres , he di d note ve n a dm i tt o the ex istence o f

h is p r io rc o n v ic tio n s . See A lm enda rez- T orres , 5 2 3 U . S. a t2 2 7 , 1 1 8 S. C t . at12 22 . T hi s a rgum enti s unavai l i ng , for H ar di ng do es no tdeny thatother e v id e n c e a s to th e e x is te n c e o f h is p r io rc o n v ic tio n s w a s p r o d u c e d a t s e n te n c in g . W e f in d n o er ro r in th e d istrict co u rt’s d ec isio n to en h an ce H ar d in g ’s s e nt e nc e , pur s ua ntt o 18 U . S . C . § 2252( b) ( 2) , ba s e d on hi s pr i orF l or i da conv i ct i on s f

or l ew d sexual batt ery. A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff i rm H ar di ng ’ s s ent ence . AF F I RME D.