United States v. Ragonese, 47 F.4th 106

Ragonese admitted possessing and distributing child‑pornography files; agents found 86 videos on his phone and he solicited explicit material from minors via social media.
Charged with receipt and possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(B), (a)(5)(B); district court applied enhanced mandatory minimums under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(1) and (b)(2).
He had a 1996 New York conviction for attempted sodomy in the first degree under N.Y. Penal Law § 130.50(3) (deviate sexual intercourse with a victim under eleven; victim was eight).
District court held the NY conviction “relates to” abusive sexual conduct involving a minor and imposed concurrent 180‑month terms (consistent with the enhanced minimums).
On appeal Ragonese argued (1) § 130.50 does not require intent for sexual gratification so it cannot qualify as a predicate under the modified categorical approach, and (2) the phrase “relating to” is unconstitutionally vague.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ragonese's 1996 NY conviction under §130.50(3) "relates to" sexual abuse so as to trigger the §2252A(b)(1)/(b)(2) sentencing enhancements	Ragonese: §130.50 lacks an element requiring purpose of sexual gratification; thus it is materially different from the federal generic offenses and should not qualify	Government: §130.50 criminalizes deviate sexual intercourse with a child under 11, i.e., quintessentially sexual abuse; "relating to" was drafted to capture such variation among state laws	Court: Affirmed — §130.50(3) relates to abusive sexual conduct involving a minor and triggers the enhancements (Barker instructs a broad "relating to" inquiry)
Whether the statutory phrase "relating to" in §2252A(b) is unconstitutionally vague	Ragonese: The broad phrasing lacks adequate notice and invites arbitrary enforcement	Government: Other circuits have rejected vagueness challenges; ordinary people understand sexual contact with a child under 11 as relating to sexual abuse	Court: Rejected on plain‑error review and on the merits; no unconstitutional vagueness found

United States v. Barker, 723 F.3d 315 (2d Cir.) (explains Congress intended a broad "relating to" inquiry for state sexual‑misconduct laws in §2252 context)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (defines categorical and modified categorical approaches for predicate‑offense analysis)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (establishes that courts look to statutory elements, not underlying facts)
United States v. Beardsley, 691 F.3d 252 (2d Cir.) (held a child‑endangerment statute did not "relate to" sexual abuse because it covered wide nonsexual conduct)
United States v. Strickland, 601 F.3d 963 (9th Cir.) (uses "stands in some relation to" language describing scope of "relating to")
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (provides vagueness test for criminal statutes)
United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (controls plain‑error review framework)
United States v. Hudson, 986 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir.) (rejected vagueness challenge to similarly worded sentencing enhancement)