Court Opinion

ID: 9835047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 02:02:26.033289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:56.716330
License: Public Domain

BEA, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Cavon Clark pleaded guilty to producing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(b), and transporting child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(l). At sentencing, the district court found that Clark had two prior state-law convictions “relating to the sexual exploitation of children,” because, in 2005, he had pleaded guilty to two counts of “knowingly possessing] visual or printed matter depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.” Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.070 (2005). The district court thus ruled that the multiple-conviction sentence enhancement in 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e) applied and that § 2251(e) mandated a minimum sentence of 35 years’ imprisonment.
I agree with the majority that the dis-' trict court misapplied the categorical approach when it determined that Clark’s prior convictions1 “relat[e] to the sexual exploitation of children” for the reasons stated in the majority’s decision. However, we are perfectly capable of rectifying this error,2 because Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.070 (2005) does categorically “relat[e] to the sexual exploitation of children.” See United States v. Quintero-Junco, 754 F.3d 746, 752-53 (9th Cir. 2014).
We have not yet defined the federal generic crime of “sexual exploitation of children,” but, at a minimum, it must mean using a minor in a pornographic photo, video, or live performance. For example, Black’s Law Dictionary defines “sexual exploitation” as “[t]he use of a person, esp. a child, in prostitution, pornography, or other sexually manipulative activity.” Washington state law defines the crime “sexual exploitation of a minor” to include “compel[ling] a minor ... to engage in sexually explicit conduct, knowing that such conduct will be photographed or part of a live performance.” Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.040(l)(a). The federal statute titled “sexual exploitation of children” criminalizes, among other things, “us[ing] ... any minor to engage in ... sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct.” 18 *304U.S.C. § 2251(a).3
Although possession of child pornography may not itself be a categorical match to. the federal generic crime of sexual exploitation of children, the multiple-conviction sentence enhancement applies when a defendant has two prior convictions “relating to the sexual exploitation of children.” 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e) (emphasis added). “[T]he phrase ‘relating to’ does not simply mandate a sentencing enhancement for individuals convicted of state offenses equivalent to [sexual exploitation of children]. Rather, it mandates the enhancement for any state offense that stands in some relation, bears upon, or is associated with that generic offense.” United States v. Sullivan, 797 F.3d 623, 638 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2408, 195 L.Ed.2d 783 (2016). In my view, possession of child pornography “stands in some relation, bears upon, or is associated with” using children in pornography. See Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 110-11, 110 S.Ct. 1691, 109 L.Ed.2d 98 (1990) (permitting states to “proscribe the possession and viewing of child pornography” in part because “it is now difficult, if not impossible, to solve the child pornography problem by only attacking production and distribution”; “encouraging the destruction of these materials is ... desirable because evidence suggests that pedophiles use child pornography to seduce other children into sexual activity”); United States v. Adams, 343 F.3d 1024, 1032-34 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholding the federal ban on possessing child pornography because even wholly intrastate possession of child pornography affects the national market for such pornography, and a ban on possession attacks the production and distribution of child pornography).4
I would thus hold that Clark’s prior possession-of-child-pornography convictions categorically “relat[e] to the sexual exploitation of children” and would affirm the district court’s decision. I therefore respectfully dissent.

. Clark pleaded guilty to a two-count information; the counts charged Clark with violating Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.070 (2005) on two dates eight months apart. He argues that the two counts should collectively constitute a single conviction for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e). I agree with the district court that each count qualifies as a separate conviction, because each . count arose from a separate "criminal episode.” See United States v. Maxey, 989 F.2d 303, 306 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129, 131-34, 113 S.Ct. 1993, 124 L.Ed.2d 44 (1993).

.. The only question that we have to answer is whether Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.070 (2005) is categorically a state law “relating to the sexual exploitation of children." This is a legal question that we can answer without further input from the district court. See, e.g., United States v. Dixon, 805 F.3d 1193, 1195 (9th Cir. 2015). Were further factfinding required, I would agree with the majority that we should remand this case to the district court.

. See also United States v. Pavulak, 700 F.3d 651, 673-75 (3d Cir. 2012); United States v. Sanchez, 440 Fed.Appx, 436, 440 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing cases),

. I recognize that the Supreme Court has “cautioned that courts may not extend these terms [‘relating to'] 'to the furthest stretch of [their] indeterminacy’ where language and historical context tug ‘in favor of a narrower reading.' ” Sullivan, 797 F.3d at 638 (second alteration in original) (quoting Mellouli v. Lynch, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 1980, 1990, 192 L.Ed.2d 60 (2015)). However, I see nothing in the' "language and historical context” of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e) that would give me ‘ pause in finding that possession of child pornography “relat[es] to the sexual exploitation of children.”