Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Predicate-Offense Scope: Alabama “Sexual Misconduct” Convictions Qualify as “Relating to Sexual Abuse” for Federal Child-Pornography Enhancements

Introduction

United States v. Michael Hill, No. 24-12874 (11th Cir. Aug. 13, 2025), addresses whether an Alabama conviction for “sexual misconduct” (Ala. Code § 13A-6-65) is a qualifying prior conviction under the federal sentencing-enhancement provisions in 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(e) and 2252A(b). Appellant Michael Hill was sentenced to a total of 840 months for child-pornography offenses after the district court applied the heightened statutory minimums and maximums reserved for offenders with a prior conviction “relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual contact/conduct involving a minor or ward.”

Hill argued that Alabama’s sexual-misconduct statute is too broad to be a categorical match and therefore cannot trigger the enhancement. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, holding that—using the modified categorical approach—Hill’s 2007 conviction under § 13A-6-65 fell within the ambit of the federal enhancement. The decision clarifies the phrase “relating to sexual abuse” and reinforces the expansive reading the Eleventh Circuit gives to “relating to” in child-exploitation statutes.

Summary of the Judgment

The court affirmed Hill’s 840-month sentence.
Applying de novo review, it held that § 13A-6-65 is divisible; the Shepard documents showed Hill pleaded guilty to non-consensual sexual intercourse/deviate sexual intercourse.
The “least culpable conduct” covered—non-consensual sexual gratification—falls within the ordinary meaning of “sexual abuse,” satisfying the federal enhancement test.
The Eleventh Circuit reaffirmed its “broad interpretation” of “relating to” and found that the Alabama offense “stands in some relation, bears upon, or is associated with sexual abuse.”

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The panel synthesized a line of Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit cases on categorical analysis and the meaning of “sexual abuse”:

United States v. Miller, 819 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2016) – Established de novo review of enhancement applicability and adopted a broad reading of “relating to.”
Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) & Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) – Define when a statute is divisible and the permissible Shepard documents for the modified categorical approach.
Lockhart v. United States, 577 U.S. 347 (2016) – Clarified the “last-antecedent” placement of “involving a minor or ward,” limiting it to the third listed offense but leaving the meaning of the three sexual -abuse phrases open.
United States v. Kushmaul, 984 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 2021) – Restated the “least culpable conduct” test and reaffirmed the broad definition of “relating to.”
Padilla-Reyes, 247 F.3d 1158 (11th Cir. 2001); McGarity, 669 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2012); Johnson, 451 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2006); Maupin, 520 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2008) – Supply earlier Eleventh Circuit definitions of “sexual abuse” and examples of what constitutes a predicate offense.

Collectively, these authorities formed the analytical scaffolding: Mathis/Descamps for methodology, Lockhart for textual parsing, and Miller/Kushmaul for the substantive reach of the term “relating to sexual abuse.”

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeded in four structured steps:

Identify the baseline: Child-pornography advertising (§ 2251) and distribution/possession (§ 2252A) carry higher penalties when the defendant has a prior conviction “relating to” aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual contact/conduct.
Categorical inquiry: Using the categorical approach, compare the elements of the Alabama offense with the “generic” federal concepts. Because § 13A-6-65 lists alternative elements (subsections (a)(1)–(3)), the statute is divisible.
Modified categorical approach: Shepard documents confirmed Hill’s conviction under subsections (a)(1) and/or (a)(3), criminalizing non-consensual intercourse or deviate intercourse “for sexual gratification.”
Matching to the generic offense: Non-consensual sexual intercourse, even absent overt force, satisfies the ordinary meaning of “sexual abuse” described in Padilla-Reyes as “misuse or maltreatment for purposes of sexual gratification.” Therefore, the Alabama conviction “relates to” sexual abuse and triggers the escalated penalties.

3. Impact of the Decision

Broader pool of predicate offenses: Practically any Alabama conviction under § 13A-6-65 involving a minor or non-consensual sexual acts will now serve as a predicate for the harsher federal sentences.
Reinforcement of a liberal “relating to” standard: The court re-emphasized that the predicate need only “stand in some relation” to sexual abuse—lowering the barrier for prosecutors seeking enhancements in child-exploitation cases.
Guidance for divisibility analysis: Trial courts in the Eleventh Circuit receive a template for treating Alabama’s sexual-misconduct statute (and analogous statutes in other states) as divisible, thereby permitting use of Shepard documents.
Sentencing negotiations: Defense counsel must now assume § 13A-6-65 is an enhancement-qualifying prior and tailor plea strategy and risk assessments accordingly.
Potential circuit split: Other circuits apply differing breadth to “relating to” and “sexual abuse.” The Hill decision may invite Supreme Court scrutiny if defendants in other circuits receive divergent treatment for similar state convictions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Categorical Approach: A method where courts compare the elements (legal building blocks) of the prior state crime with the elements of the federal generic offense, ignoring the underlying facts.
Divisible vs. Indivisible Statute: • Indivisible – one set of elements.
• Divisible – lists alternative elements, effectively multiple crimes in one statute. If divisible, courts may resort to the modified categorical approach.
Modified Categorical Approach: When a statute is divisible, courts consult limited documents (indictment, plea colloquy, judgment, etc.) to identify the particular statutory alternative that formed the conviction.
Shepard Documents: The official records the Supreme Court, in Shepard v. United States, allows courts to examine: indictments, trial jury instructions, plea agreements, plea colloquies, and comparable judicial records.
“Relating to”: Interpreted broadly: if the prior offense “stands in some relation, bears upon, or is associated with” sexual abuse, the enhancement applies—even if the state offense is not a perfect match for a federal sexual-abuse statute.
Sexual Abuse (Generic): In the Eleventh Circuit, any physical or non-physical misuse of a person for sexual gratification, whether or not force is present.

Conclusion

United States v. Hill cements the Eleventh Circuit’s expansive view of what qualifies as a prior conviction “relating to” sexual abuse for purposes of federal child-pornography enhancements. By declaring Alabama’s sexual misconduct statute a proper predicate—through detailed divisibility and modified categorical analysis—the panel provides clear guidance to district courts, prosecutors, and defense counsel alike. Future defendants with analogous state convictions will face significantly higher mandatory minimums and statutory maximums. The decision also reinforces the Eleventh Circuit’s alignment with a victim-protective reading of child-exploitation statutes, ensuring that statutory phrases such as “relating to” capture a wide swath of sexually abusive conduct, irrespective of technical state-law labels.

Whether other circuits will follow this broadened approach remains to be seen, but Hill undeniably shifts the sentencing landscape within the Eleventh Circuit and signals the court’s willingness to tread boldly in the interest of child-protection policy.