United States v. Christopher Mateen, 764 F.3d 627

Mateen pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) with images of minors.
He previously pleaded guilty to Ohio Gross Sexual Imposition (R.C. 2907.05), a fourth-degree felony.
District court held the § 2252(b)(2) enhancement did not apply because the prior state conviction might not involve a minor or ward.
The government sought the enhancement; district court applied a modified-categorical approach and sentenced Mateen to the ten-year maximum.
On appeal, the government argues the statute is satisfied if the prior conviction relates to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward.
The Sixth Circuit ultimately vacates and remands for re-sentencing under the correct statutory construction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the phrase “involving a minor or ward” modifies all three categories.	Mateen	Mateen	Modifies only abusive sexual conduct
Whether a state conviction for Gross Sexual Imposition can trigger the enhancement.	Mateen	Mateen	Yes, if it relates to abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward
Is remand appropriate to determine connection to the predicate offenses?	Mateen	Mateen	Remand for district court to decide relation to aggravated/sexual abuse or abusive conduct
Should the court apply the rule of lenity?	Mateen	Mateen	Not applicable; statute clear

Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (U.S. 2003) (last-antecedent rule in statutory interpretation)
United States v. Felts, 674 F.3d 599 (6th Cir. 2012) (statutory-interpretation de novo review)
United States v. Gardner, 649 F.3d 437 (6th Cir. 2011) (mandatory minimum sentence determinations)
United States v. Parrett, 530 F.3d 422 (6th Cir. 2008) (plain-language/statutory-structure analysis)
United States v. Lockhart, 749 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2014) (canon considerations: last antecedent vs. series qualifier)