United States v. Brady Leon Beck, Jr., 957 F.3d 440

Beck was indicted on multiple child-pornography counts; he pleaded guilty to Count Two (distribution, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1)) and Count Five (18 U.S.C. § 2260A) pursuant to a written plea agreement and factual basis.
The factual basis admitted a prior North Carolina conviction (second-degree rape of a 10-year-old) requiring sex-offender registration, and that while required to register Beck produced and distributed child pornography of a 3-year-old.
The plea agreement dismissed three other counts (including a production count carrying a possible life sentence) and contained a broad appellate-waiver except for ineffective-assistance or prosecutorial-misconduct claims.
The district court accepted the plea and sentenced Beck to 40 years on Count Two and a mandatory 10 years on Count Five to run consecutively; Beck later sought to withdraw his plea and challenged whether § 2260A states an offense.
On appeal the Fourth Circuit held Beck’s statutory challenge fell outside his appeal waiver (because it alleged no court could lawfully convict under § 2260A) and reviewed de novo whether § 2260A creates an offense or is merely a sentence enhancement.
The court affirmed: § 2260A is a standalone offense because it requires proof of an aggravating element—that the predicate felony "involv[ed] a minor"—beyond a predicate-offense and prior-conviction element, so Sixth Amendment protections attach.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 2260A creates a substantive offense or a sentencing enhancement	Beck: § 2260A is only a sentence enhancement (predicate-offense + prior-conviction) and cannot itself support a conviction	Gov: § 2260A creates a separate offense because it requires an additional aggravating element ("involving a minor") that must be proved	§ 2260A is an offense; the "involving a minor" element makes it more than an enhancement
Whether Beck’s appeal is barred by his plea agreement’s appellate waiver	Beck: waiver does not bar a claim that § 2260A cannot support any conviction (a claim that courts lack authority)	Gov: waiver bars the challenge; Beck knowingly waived appeals	Waiver does not bar this challenge because it alleges the district court exceeded authority in convicting under a statute that could not support conviction
Whether sentencing Beck under § 2260A without a conviction for an enumerated predicate was unauthorized	Beck: district court lacked statutory authority absent conviction of an enumerated predicate	Gov: Beck pleaded guilty to § 2260A and admitted conduct; plea and sentence were lawful	Court rejects Beck’s challenge and affirms the conviction and 10-year sentence under § 2260A

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (distinguishes prior-conviction elements from elements requiring jury determination)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing prescribed range of penalties must be found by a jury)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (extends Apprendi; aggravating facts that increase mandatory minimums are elements)
Haymond v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019) (concurrence examining when a provision looks more like a separate offense than a sentencing device)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (statute may list alternative means of satisfying a single element)
Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (mens rea and prior-conviction elements can be required elements of an offense)
Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983) (canons of statutory construction: different wording signals deliberate congressional choice)
Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990) (courts assume Congress knows existing law when it enacts statutes)