United States v. Chad Jaycox, 962 F.3d 1066

Chad Jaycox pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)); the PSR calculated a Guidelines range of 262–327 months and the district court imposed a 240‑month sentence (downward from the Guidelines).
The district court applied the § 2252(b)(1) mandatory‑minimum enhancement (raising the minimum from 5 to 15 years) based on Jaycox’s 2010 California conviction under Cal. Penal Code § 261.5(c) (unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger).
Jaycox objected, arguing § 261.5(c) criminalizes conduct (e.g., consensual sex between a 21‑year‑old and someone nearly 18) that is not necessarily abusive and therefore does not qualify under § 2252(b)(1); the district court relied on United States v. Sullivan and overruled the objection.
The Ninth Circuit applied the categorical approach and the Supreme Court’s “relating to” analysis and held § 261.5(c) is not a categorical match to the federal generic offense of sexual abuse of a minor and its minimum conduct is not sufficiently related to abusive sexual conduct involving a minor.
The court reversed and remanded for resentencing because the incorrect enhancement altered the statutory and Guidelines ranges and could have affected the district court’s § 3553(a) balancing; the court also held the district court did not abuse discretion by prioritizing national parity over Jaycox’s regional sentencing data.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jaycox’s prior CA conviction (§ 261.5(c)) supports the § 2252(b)(1) enhancement	Gov: § 261.5(c) “relates to” abusive sexual conduct because the age gap causes psychological harm and thus fits within § 2252(b)(1)	Jaycox: § 261.5(c) reaches consensual, non‑abusive conduct (e.g., 21 and nearly 18) and thus is not a categorical or related match	Reversed — § 261.5(c) is neither a categorical match nor sufficiently “related to” abusive sexual conduct involving a minor to trigger the enhancement
Whether the district court erred in discounting regional sentencing data under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6)	Gov: court permissibly focused on national uniformity and parity	Jaycox: court should have given definitive weight to regional data showing disparity	No abuse of discretion in focusing on national parity, but resentencing required because the incorrect enhancement may have affected § 3553(a) analysis

United States v. Sullivan, 797 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2015) (applied "relating to" analysis to Cal. Penal Code § 261.5(d) and upheld enhancement)
Esquivel‑Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017) (guidance on age thresholds for generic offense of sexual abuse of a minor)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (establishing the categorical approach)
Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) ("relating to" has a broadening effect)
United States v. Sinerius, 504 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. 2007) ("relating to" interpreted as standing in some relation to the generic offense)
United States v. Lopez‑Solis, 447 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2006) (consensual sex over 16 not necessarily abusive)
United States v. Medina‑Villa, 567 F.3d 507 (9th Cir. 2009) (consensual intercourse with older teens not per se abusive)
United States v. Schopp, 938 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2019) (limits on expanding "relating to" beyond the federal crime’s substantive linchpin)
United States v. Reinhart, 893 F.3d 606 (9th Cir. 2018) (de novo review of whether a prior conviction supports a mandatory minimum enhancement)
Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (remand may be required where sentencing used an incorrect Guidelines range)