“Relating To” Re-Examined: Fifth Circuit Broadens the Scope of Predicate Sex-Offense Enhancements under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)

1. Introduction

Case: United States v. Taylor, No. 24-20303 (5th Cir. Aug. 4 2025)
Appellant: Harley Taylor (defendant below)
Appellee: United States of America
Issue on Appeal: Whether the district court erroneously enhanced Taylor’s sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(1) & (b)(2) on the basis of his 2019 Texas conviction for “promotion of child pornography,” Tex. Penal Code § 43.26(e).
Procedural Posture: Taylor pleaded guilty to receipt and possession of child pornography. The district court applied statutory enhancements and imposed concurrent 17-year terms. Because Taylor had not objected below, appellate review proceeded under the “plain error” standard.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that:

Promotion or possession with intent to promote child pornography under Texas Penal Code § 43.26(e) “relates to” child pornography within the meaning of § 2252A(b)(1)-(2), even though the Texas statute defines “sexual conduct” more broadly than federal law.
Because Taylor expressly admitted the existence and nature of his prior conviction during his federal plea colloquy, the district court properly relied on Shepard-approved sources rather than exclusively on the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR).
Any arguable error in referencing the PSR was not “plain,” and in any event did not affect Taylor’s substantial rights.

The decision crystallises a broad reading of the phrase “relating to” in § 2252A(b), bringing the Fifth Circuit into alignment with other circuits that have adopted an expansive approach to state-law predicates for child-pornography enhancements.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) – defines the permissible universe of documents (“Shepard documents”) a sentencing court may consult when determining the character of a prior conviction. The court relied on Taylor’s own in-court admissions, thereby satisfying Shepard.
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) – instructs courts to use the categorical approach when comparing state and federal offenses. Taylor invoked Descamps to argue overbreadth, but the panel distinguished categorical-matching cases from “relating to” language.
United States v. Hubbard, 480 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2007) – interpreted “relating to sexual abuse” in § 2252A(b). Hubbard’s expansive reading of “relating to” provided the analytic springboard for the present ruling.
United States v. Wikkerink, 841 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2016) – reiterated the categorical approach but acknowledged exceptions where statutory text calls for wider inquiry.
United States v. Nimaja-Pol, 2023 WL 8184819 (5th Cir. Nov. 27 2023) (unpublished) – observed that Texas’ definition is broader than federal child-pornography statutes, but in the context of immigration “aggravated felony.” The Taylor panel distinguishes it because § 2252A(b) is textually broader.
Plain-error authorities: Medina-Anicacio, Bree, Puckett, Molina-Martinez – collectively set the four-factor test for reversal on unpreserved sentencing issues.
Out-of-Circuit support: United States v. Sykes, 65 F.4th 867 (6th Cir. 2023); United States v. Box, 960 F.3d 1025 (8th Cir. 2020) – both endorse a “broad ordinary meaning” for “relating to” in analogous enhancements, a line the panel explicitly embraces.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Standard of Review – Plain Error: Because Taylor failed to object below, he had to satisfy all four prongs of the plain-error test; failure on any prong ends the inquiry.
Shepard Compliance: The defendant’s signed factual basis and verbal admissions constitute Shepard-approved sources. That documentation alone justified the district court’s finding that the 2019 Texas conviction existed and involved promotion of child pornography.
Textual Analysis of § 2252A(b): The phrase “under … the laws of any State relating to … child pornography” is broader than language that requires identity of elements. Borrowing Hubbard’s dictionary-based definition, the panel holds that “relating to” means any statute that “bears upon” or is “connected with” the proscribed conduct.
Overbreadth Argument Rejected: Even though § 43.26(e) covers depictions of a minor’s breast—an act not expressly covered by § 2256’s definition of “sexually explicit conduct”—the Texas statute still indisputably concerns child pornography. Thus, it “relates to” the conduct enumerated in the federal enhancement provision.
Harmlessness (Substantial Rights): Given the court’s legal conclusion, there is no “reasonable probability” of a different sentence; therefore, even any arguable documentation error would not warrant reversal.

3.3 Potential Impact of the Judgment

The decision carries several forward-looking implications:

Expansion of Qualifying Predicates: State statutes that are broader than federal child-pornography definitions can still trigger § 2252A enhancements, so long as they “relate to” covered conduct. Defense counsel must now confront a larger universe of potential predicate offenses.
Limitation on the Categorical Approach: By distinguishing “relating to” language from categorical-match statutes, the Fifth Circuit aligns with the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits. Future litigants may find it harder to invoke Descamps in enhancement contexts featuring broad connecting language.
Reliance on Plea Admissions: Courts may rely heavily on defendants’ own allocutions to establish predicates, underscoring the importance of strategic objection and caution during plea colloquies.
Sentencing Leverage: Prosecutors now have clearer authority to secure heightened penalties in cases where defendants have any child-pornography-related prior, even under state laws with expansive definitions. Conversely, defendants face steeper exposure unless they can show a prior statute is utterly untethered to the enumerated conduct.
Immigration & Collateral Contexts: Although the panel distinguishes immigration cases, the reasoning may bleed into immigration and other statutory schemes that also employ “relating to” language.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Plain Error Review: A stringent appellate standard applied when the defendant did not object in the trial court. Reversal requires (1) an error, (2) that is “plain” or obvious, (3) affecting substantial rights (usually meaning it changed the outcome), and (4) seriously affecting the fairness or integrity of judicial proceedings.
Categorical Approach: A method of comparing statutes “on their face,” ignoring the facts of the individual case. Used primarily in ACCA and immigration contexts, but sometimes relaxed when statutory language (like “relating to”) signals broader inquiry.
Shepard Documents: Limited, reliable documents—such as charging instruments, plea agreements, and judicial admissions—permitted to establish the nature of a prior conviction for sentencing purposes.
State Predicate Offense: A prior state conviction that qualifies for a federal sentencing enhancement.
“Relating To” Language: Legislative phrasing that extends coverage beyond exact duplicates; courts read it to include any offense that has a connection or bearing on the specified subject matter.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Taylor cements a broad interpretation of § 2252A(b)’s predicate-offense clause. By holding that Texas’ promotion-of-child-pornography statute qualifies even though it encompasses depictions beyond federal law, the Fifth Circuit reinforces the idea that “relating to” enlarges—rather than limits—the field of enhancements. The ruling also underscores the decisive role of defendant admissions and the hurdle posed by plain-error review. Going forward, courts within the Fifth Circuit will likely apply enhanced penalties to a wide array of state child-pornography convictions, reshaping plea dynamics and sentencing exposure in child-exploitation prosecutions.