N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. DAVID ALAN C OHEN,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 19-10288

D.C . No. 2:17-c r-00114-APG-DJA-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Andre w P. Gordon, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 15, 2022 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B YB EE a

n d R . NELSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B OLTON, * * * Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED APR 19 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Susa n R . B olton, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.De fe nda nt Da vid Ala n C ohe n a ppe a ls his se nte nc e following his c onvic tion for one c ount of posse ssion of c hild pornogra p hy in viola t ion of 18 U.S.C
. § 2252A(a )(5) and one c o unt of re c e i pt or distribution of c hild pornogra

phy in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2252A(a )(2)(B ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. C ohe n c ha lle nge s the distric t c o urt’ s a p plic a tion of the18 U.S.C
. § 2252A(b)(1) a

nd (2) se nte nc e e nha

nc e m e nts, whic h a

pply to de fe nda

nts with a

“ prior c onvic tion . . . under the la ws of a ny State re lating to a ggrav a te d se x ua l
a buse , se xua l a

buse , or a busive se xua l c onduc t involving a m inor or wa

rd.” Ordina rily , we re vie w whe the r prior c o nvic t ions support sta tutory m a n datory
m inim um e nha nc e m e nts de novo. Unite d State s v . Re inhart , 893 F.3d 606, 610 (9th C ir. 2018). B ut whe n, a s he re , a de fe nda nt fa ils to ra ise an obje c tion in the distric t c o urt, the se nte n c e is re vie we d for pla in e rror. Unite d State s v . C harle s , 581 F.3d 927, 932 (9th C ir. 2009); se e Fe d. R
. C rim . P. 51, 52(b). 1. The distric t c ourt wa s not re quire d to m ake spe c ific fa c tua l findings
re ga rding the a

pplic a t ion of the se nte n c ing e nha nc e m e nt. “ A finding tha

t a de fe nda n t is e ligiblefor a se nte nc e e nha nc e m e nt ordina

rily doe s not re quire spe c ific fa c t-finding.” Unite d State s v . C arte r , 219 F.3d 863, 866 (9th C i r. 2000). And unde r the Fe de ra l R

ule s of C rim ina l Proc e dure , the distric t c ourt is only

2re quire d to rule on “ any dispute d portion of the

pre se nte nc e re port or othe r c ontrove rte d m a tte r.” Fe d. R . C rim P. 32(i)(3)(B ); se e C

arte r , 219 F.3d a

t 866. B e c a use C o he n d i d not obje c t to the a pplic at ion of the § 2252A(b)(1) a nd (2)
e nha nc e m e nts, the distric t c ourt did not err by not m aking spe c ific fa c tua l findings on why N.Y. Pe n a l La

w § 130.45 qualifie s a s a

n offe nse re lating to a ggravate d
se xua l a buse , se xua l a

buse , or a busive se xua l c onduc t involving a m inor or wa

rd. 2. The distric t c ourt did not c om m it pla in e rror in a

pply ing the
m andatory

m inim um e nha nc e m e nts in 18 U.S.C
. § 2552A(b)(1) a nd (2). Unde r the
c a te goric a l a

pproa c h , we “ first de fine [] the fe d e ra l ge ne ric de finition of the c rim e , and the n c om

pa re [] the e le m e nts of the sta te offe nse with tha

t de finition.” U

nite d State s v . Sullivan , 797 F.3d 623, 635 (9th C ir. 2015) (c itingTay lor v . Unite d State s , 495 U.S. 575 (1990)). W e have he ld tha t se xua l c onduc t with a

c h ild unde r the a ge of fourte e n is pe r se a busive be c a

use it is “ undoubte dly

psy c hologic a lly ha rm ful.” Unite d State

s v . J ay c ox , 962 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th C ir. 2020) (quoting Unite d State s v . Me dina-Villa , 567 F.3d 507, 513 (9th C ir. 2009)). The re is no que stion tha

t the Ne w York sta

tute re late s to a

b usive se x ua l c onduc t

involving a

3m inor a

nd to se xua l a

buse
. 1 The sta

tute re quire s c onta c t of a

se xua l na ture and, be c a use the vic tim

m u s t be le ss tha

n fourte e n y e ars old, thec onduc t is pe r se a busive
. Se e Unite d State

s v . Farme r , 627 F.3d 416, 419 (9th C ir. 2010). B e c a u se the e ntire range of c onduc t p rosc ribe d by § 130.45 ne c e ssa

rily involve s se xua l
a buse a nd se x ua l c onduc t involving a m inor, the distric t c ourt did not err in
c onc luding tha

t N.Y. Pe na l La

w § 130.45 is a

n offe nse “ re lating to a ggravate d
se xua l a buse , se xua l a

buse or a busive se xua l c onduc t involving a m inor or wa

rd.” 18 U.S.C . § 2252A(b)(1), (2). B e c a use the re is no e rror, C ohe n c annot de m onstra

te a pla i n e rror re q

uiring re ve rsa l. AFFIRM E D.

1 The ve rsion of the sta

tute tha t C o he n wa s c onvic te d unde r sta te s: “ A pe rson is guilty

of sodom y in the se c ond de gre e whe n, be ing e ighte e n y e ars old or m ore , he e nga ge s in de viate se xua l inte rc ourse with a nothe r pe rson le ss tha

n fourte e n y e ars old.” N.Y. Pe n a l La w § 130.45 (M c Kinne y

1965). The re le va

nt de finitiona l provision de fine d “ de viate se xua l inte rc ourse ” a s “ se xua l c onduc t be twe e n pe rsons not m arrie d to e a c h othe r c onsisting of c onta c t be twe e n the pe nis a

n d the anus, the m outh a

nd pe nis, or them outh a

n d the vulva .” Id. § 130.00. 4