United States v. Adam Sprenger, 14 F.4th 785

Sprenger was indicted on four counts: production of child pornography as to Victim A (count 1) and Victim B (count 2), transportation (count 3), and possession of child pornography (count 4).
He pled guilty to count 1 (production involving Victim A) and count 4 (possession); he stipulated to count 2 only for sentencing; counts 2 and 3 were dismissed under the plea deal.
The plea agreement and Rule 11 colloquy recited facts: Sprenger photographed Victim A (age 14) asleep, taking images showing his erect penis near her face but not depicting Victim A engaged in sexually explicit conduct; he also possessed >1,000 images/videos including videos of Victim B (age 13) that showed him masturbating over her, making contact, and ejaculating.
The district court accepted the pleas after a detailed factual basis and sentenced Sprenger to concurrent 30 years (count 1) and 20 years (count 4). Sprenger preserved the right to appeal the plea validity.
After this court’s decision in United States v. Howard (interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)), Sprenger argued his count 1 production plea lacked a legal factual basis because the images depicted only him engaged in sexual conduct, not the minor.
The government agreed that count 1 is invalid post-Howard but argued count 4 (possession) remains supported by an adequate factual basis; the Seventh Circuit vacated count 1, affirmed count 4, and remanded for resentencing as needed.

Issue	Sprenger's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the factual basis supports a § 2251(a) production conviction for count 1 post-Howard	The images he took of Victim A show only him engaging in sexually explicit conduct, so they do not satisfy § 2251(a) and the plea to count 1 is invalid	Howard controls: § 2251(a) requires causing the minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct depicted; the admitted facts do not show Victim A engaged in such conduct	Vacated: court held Howard forecloses convicting for production where only the defendant, not the minor, is depicted engaging in sexually explicit conduct
Whether invalidation of count 1 requires voiding the remainder of the plea agreement (counts 2 stipulation and count 4 conviction)	Because the plea was premised on a mutual mistake about the nature of count 1, the entire plea should be withdrawn	Counts are not interdependent; possession (count 4) has an independent, adequate factual basis and concurrent sentences are not a "sentencing package" requiring vacatur	Affirmed count 4: the court declined to void the whole plea; it vacated only count 1 and remanded for resentencing if necessary

United States v. Howard, 968 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2020) (§ 2251(a) requires that the defendant’s actions cause the minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct depicted)
United States v. Bradley, 381 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2004) (mutual mistake about an essential element can render guilty pleas invalid and interdependent counts voidable)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (standards for voluntary and intelligent guilty pleas)
McKeever v. Warden SCI-Graterford, 486 F.3d 81 (3d Cir. 2007) (sentencing package doctrine and limits on voiding multi-count pleas)
United States v. Novak, 841 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2016) (sufficient factual basis can survive removal of a defective legal theory)
United States v. Shue, 825 F.2d 1111 (7th Cir. 1987) (origin of the sentencing-package doctrine)
United States v. Dowthard, 948 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2020) (plain-error review framework for unpreserved Rule 11 challenges)
United States v. Williams, 946 F.3d 968 (7th Cir. 2020) (plain-error analysis considers law at time of appeal)