OPINION
Jаmes Terry Moore appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court sentenced him under the wrong statute and, therefore, the sentence imposеd was improper. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the district court.
I.
The police caught James Terry Moore sending and receiving child pornograрhy over the internet, and discovered 7,000 to 8,000 pornographic images on his computer, over 5,000 of which were graphic sexual depictions of children under the age of 12. Moore’s extensive criminal history included two separate convictions for gross sexual imposition involving a girl under the age of 13, a conviction for statutory rape, and a conviction for distributing child pornography. Moore entered guilty pleas to four counts of advertising, possessing, and distributing child pornography.
At sentencing, the government argued for a life sentence, on the basis that Moore was a repeat child sex offender, and thеrefore subject to a specific statutory minimum sentence:
A person who is convicted of a [fjederal sex offense in which a minor is the victim shall be sentenced to life imprisonment if the person has a prior sex conviction in which a minor was the victim, unless the sentence of death is imposed.
18 U.S.C. § 3559(e)(1). Moore countered that another — conflicting—statute should control and that, pursuant to that statute, he should be sentenced to a statutory minimum 35 years:
Any individual who viоlates ... this section [i.e., sexual exploitation of children] ... [and] has 2 or more prior convictions ... relating to the sexual exploitation of children, ... shаll be ... imprisoned not less than 35 years nor more than life.
18 U.S.C. § 2251(e). Moore argued that the two statutory provisions are irreconcilable and, due to the rule оf lenity, the court was obligated to apply the more lenient of the two.
The district court agreed that the two statutes were contradictory, but added thаt, in reconciling conflicting provisions that were enacted at the same time, the
*190
last in order or arrangement controls.
See United States ex rel. Harris v. Daniels,
II.
Moore raises three arguments on appeal, the foremost among them being the same argument he raised to the district court — that the “irreconсilable conflict” between the two provisions renders them ambiguous and, hence, subject to the rule of lenity. The government responds that there is no cоnflict, but even if there were, this conflict would not render the provisions ambiguous; it would merely prompt us to invoke ordinary rules of statutory construction to detеrmine which controls.
“A matter requiring statutory interpretation is a question of law requiring
de novo
review, and the starting point for interpretation is the language of the statutе itself.”
United States v. Shafer,
Even if these provisions did contradict each other, this contradiction would not invoke the rule of lenity. “The touch
*191
stone of the rule of lenity is statutory ambiguity,” suсh that “[t]he rule comes into operation at the end of the process of construing what Congress has expressed[ ] and applies only when, after consulting traditional canons of statutory construction, we are left with an ambiguous statute.”
Burgess v. United States,
— U.S. —,
Moore also argues that the district court erred by relying on the 2003 amendments to the statute when it should have relied on certain 2006 amendments, which, he contends, result in § 2251(e)’s having repealed § 3559(e)(1) by implication, making § 2251(e) controlling. The government replies that Moore never raised this argument to the distriсt court so this is a matter of plain error review and there is no error here, plain or otherwise, inasmuch as Congress amended § 3559(e)(1) in 2006 as well, so neither is lаter enacted. The government is correct that the 2006 amendments amended both § 2251 and § 3559(e)(1), so neither is later enacted.
Finally, Moore argues that § 2251(e) is more specific than § 3559(e), inasmuch as § 2251(e) applies only to defendants who have been convicted of one of several specifically nаmed offenses (e.g., “aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact involving a minor or ward, or sex trafficking of children, or the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography”), whereas § 3559(e)(1) applies broadly and generаlly (e.g., any “prior sex conviction in which a minor was the victim”).
The government responds, as it did to the prior argument, that this is a matter of plain error review (inasmuсh as Moore has never before raised this argument) and there is no error here, plain or otherwise. The government argues — and we agree— that § 2251(e) appears specific only by way of Moore’s “tortured interpretation,” and § 3559(e)(1) appears general only if we omit that section’s express dеfinitions, e.g., “prior sex conviction” and “Federal sex offense.” Section 3559(e) may cover more crimes and criminals than § 2251(e)(1) but that does not render it any lеss specific.
111.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
Notes
. The pertinent portion of this provision applies to defendants who have “[two] or more prior convictions under this chapter, chapter 71, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under section 920 of title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), or under the laws of any State relating to the sexual exploitation of children.” 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e).
. "Federal sex offense” is a defined term meaning
[A]n offense under section 1591 (relating to sex trafficking of children), 2241 (relating to аggravated sexual abuse), 2242 (relating to sexual abuse), 2244(a)(1) (relating to abusive sexual contact), 2245 (relating to sexual abuse resulting in death), 2251 (relating to sexual еxploitation of children), 2251A (relating to selling or buying of children), 2422(b) (relating to coercion and enticement of a minor into prostitution), or 2423(a) (relating to transportation of minors)[.]
18 U.S.C. § 3559(e)(2)(A).