Opinion ID: 2736649
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Actual Touching or Contact

Text: Mathis asserts that for an enhancement to apply under § 2251(e), a prior state conviction must have required sexual contact, not merely sexual conduct. He maintains that because he was convicted of lewd or lascivious assault on a minor, 39 Case: 13-13109 Date Filed: 09/24/2014 Page: 40 of 42 and assault can be committed without actual touching, his conviction under § 800.04 of the Florida Statutes was not a qualifying offense.13 Mathis’s argument is unavailing. His reading of § 2251(e) ignores the plain text of the statute, which provides for an enhanced sentencing range if the defendant has previously been convicted under a state law relating to sexual abuse of a minor. See 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e). We have interpreted the phrase “relating to” broadly in the context of child exploitation offenses, and have held that a defendant’s prior conviction under Georgia law for discussing illicit sexual acts with a minor warranted an enhancement under § 2251(e). See United States v. McGarity, 669 F.3d 1218, 1262-63 (11th Cir. 2012). We have also held that the plain meaning of the phrase “sexual abuse of a minor” includes “acts that involve physical contact between the perpetrator and the victim as well as acts that do not.” United States v. Padilla-Reyes, 247 F.3d 1158, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001). Mathis cannot avoid our clear pronouncement that “the phrase ‘sexual abuse of a minor’ means a perpetrator’s physical or nonphysical misuse or maltreatment of a minor for a purpose associated with sexual gratification.” Id. Mathis’s prior state conviction under § 800.04 for lewd or lascivious assault on a child related to the 13 At the time of Mathis’s offense, § 800.04 provided in pertinent part that “[a] person who . . . [h]andles, fondles, or assaults any child under the age of 16 years in a lewd, lascivious, or indecent manner . . . without committing the crime of sexual battery, commits a felony of the second degree.” Fla. Stat. § 800.04(1) (1994). 40 Case: 13-13109 Date Filed: 09/24/2014 Page: 41 of 42 sexual abuse of a minor and the district court did not err by enhancing his sentence under § 2251(e).