United States v. Thomas Schopp, 938 F.3d 1053

Background:

Schopp met a 15‑year‑old in Alaska and recorded/photographed himself engaging in sexual acts with the minor; he pleaded guilty to producing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).
He had multiple prior Alaska convictions (various degrees of sexual assault/sexual abuse of minors) that did not involve production or visual depictions of the abuse.
At plea and sentencing the district court applied 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e)’s multiple‑conviction enhancement (two or more prior convictions “under the laws of any State relating to the sexual exploitation of children”) and imposed life imprisonment.
Schopp challenged on appeal that his prior Alaska convictions do not “relat[e] to the sexual exploitation of children” as required for the multiple‑conviction enhancement.
The Ninth Circuit held that § 2251’s section heading and text define “sexual exploitation of children” as the production of visual depictions (child pornography); Schopp’s prior convictions lack that visual‑depiction/exploitation element, so they are not qualifying predicates; the court reversed and remanded for resentencing.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Schopp’s prior Alaska convictions qualify as convictions “relating to the sexual exploitation of children” under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e) for the multiple‑conviction enhancement	Schopp: they do not qualify because they criminalize sexual abuse/assault without requiring production/visual depiction of sexual conduct	Government: the prior sexual‑abuse convictions “relate to” sexual exploitation because production depicts the underlying sexual abuse; they should qualify	Held: Prior Alaska convictions do not qualify; §2251(e) “sexual exploitation of children” is defined as production of child pornography, and the state offenses lack that element
How to define the generic federal term “sexual exploitation of children” for categorical‑approach purposes	Schopp: should be read to require the visual‑depiction/production element present in §2251	Government: urges a broader ordinary‑meaning reading covering sexual abuse of children generally	Held: The court anchors the term to §2251 (section heading + text) and related statutes/Guidelines; it means production of child pornography
Effect of the modifier “relating to” — does it broaden the predicate to all child sexual‑abuse offenses?	Schopp: “relating to” must be anchored to the §2251 definition (production/exploitation) and cannot swallow the statutory distinction	Government: “relating to” expands scope to include sexual‑abuse crimes because production depicts such abuse	Held: “Relating to” permits predicates that match or include the visual‑depiction/exploitation elements; it does not convert all sexual‑abuse convictions into exploitation predicates
Procedural appellate issues — appeal waiver and standard of review (plain error)	Schopp: appeals despite waiver because sentence was illegal (exceeded statutory maximum if enhancement misapplied)	Government: waiver argued but illegal sentence exception applies	Held: Appeal permitted because it challenges legality of sentence; court applies de novo review to predicate issue and plain‑error review for failure to object, finds plain error and reverses

Key Cases Cited

Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (establishes categorical approach for comparing state convictions to generic federal offenses)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (explains modified categorical approach and divisibility analysis)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (clarifies when a statute is divisible for the modified categorical approach)
Mellouli v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 1980 (2015) (limits how far the phrase “relating to” can broaden a federal statute; context may narrow its reach)
United States v. Reinhart, 893 F.3d 606 (9th Cir. 2018) (anchors “relating to” to definitions appearing in the same chapter and applies Mellouli’s contextual limits)
United States v. Sullivan, 797 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2015) (applies Mellouli in §2251(e) context; relevant Ninth Circuit precedent on prior‑conviction predicates)
United States v. Sinerius, 504 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. 2007) (prior Ninth Circuit treatment of “sexual abuse” in related sentencing‑enhancement contexts)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (sets the plain‑error review standard for unpreserved errors)