United States v. Beardsley
691 F.3d 252
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Beardsley pled guilty in New York to Endangering the Welfare of a Child under N.Y. Penal Law § 260.10(1) based on two 2001 incidents involving sexual contact with an 18‑month‑old.
- Indictment alleged Beardsley’s NY conviction was a predicate offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(1) for enhanced penalties on federal child-pornography offenses.
- Special Information and indictment both asserted that the prior state conviction triggered § 2252A(b)(1)’s 15‑year minimum.
- District court applied the modified categorical approach, reviewing Shepard‑compatible state materials, and held the NY offense qualified as a predicate.
- Beardsley pled guilty under a plea agreement preserving appeal and was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment, within the § 2252A(b)(1) minimum.
- Beardsley appealed, arguing the court erred in using the modified categorical approach and that the state statute is not a predicate offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the modified categorical approach applies to § 2252A(b)(1). | Beardsley contends approach is improper for a broad, indivisible statute. | Beardsley argues the district court should apply the categorical approach only. | Modified approach not permitted; only categorical applies. |
| Whether New York’s § 260.10(1) is divisible into predicate/non‑predicate offenses for § 2252A(b)(1). | Beardsley argues statute is broad and indivisible. | Beardsley argues underlying plea could show predicate conduct. | Statute is not divisible; cannot use modified categorical analysis. |
| Whether the district court’s use of the modified categorical approach affected the sentencing enhancement. | If the wrong method was used, the enhancement may not apply. | N/A | Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing consistent with categorical approach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (origin of categorical approach for predicate offenses)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (formalized limited documents for modified categorical approach)
- Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) (clarified divisibility concept for modified approach)
- Johnson v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1265 (2010) (modified categorical approach when statute covers multiple generic crimes)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007) (reaffirmed categorical approach for ACCA predicate determination)
- Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (2009) (illustrated limits of modified categorical approach for violent-felony predicates)
- Galo, 239 F.3d 572 (3d Cir. 2001) (state-endangering statute cannot be treated as predicate under a broadened theory)
- Baker, 665 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2012) (divisible/statutory-phrase analysis in § 2252A(b) context)
- Aguila-Montes de Oca, 655 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2011) (debated divisibility and broader modified categorical scope)