In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 18‐2454 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff‐Appellee, v. RICHARD KRAEMER, Defendant‐Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 2:17‐cr‐00035‐PP‐1 — Pamela Pepper, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED MARCH 28, 2019 — DECIDED JULY 31, 2019 ____________________ Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Richard Kraemer pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). At sentencing, the district court de‐ termined that Mr. Kraemer’s prior Wisconsin convictions for first‐degree and second‐degree sexual assault of a child con‐ stituted convictions “relating to … abusive sexual conduct involving a minor” and therefore triggered a ten‐year, man‐ datory minimum sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2). The dis‐ 2 No. 18‐2454 trict court then imposed a sentence of 133 months’ impris‐ onment, followed by eight years of supervised release.1 Mr. Kraemer now challenges the district court’s determi‐ nation that he was subject to the mandatory minimum. As we explain more fully in the following paragraphs, because the applicable federal enhancement statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2), requires only that a prior state statute of convic‐ tion “relat[e] to,” rather than be fully equivalent to, “aggra‐ vated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward,” the district court did not err in finding Mr. Kraemer was subject to the mandatory mini‐ mum.2 I BACKGROUND In 2017, law enforcement officers discovered a series of downloads of child pornography from an IP (internet proto‐ col) address associated with Mr. Kraemer’s residence. FBI agents then executed a search warrant for that residence and found an external hard drive containing images of child pornography. Mr. Kraemer later admitted that he possessed child pornography on his desktop computer and on his ex‐ ternal hard drive, that he searched for child pornography using specific search terms, and that his current collection of child pornography totaled about 100,000 files. A federal grand jury returned an indictment. It charged Mr. Kraemer with five counts of distribution of child por‐ 1 The district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. 2 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. No. 18‐2454 3 nography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), and one count of possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). He entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of child pornography, and the Gov‐ ernment agreed to dismiss the five remaining counts. Mr. Kraemer reserved his right to appeal the sentencing judge’s determination that his prior convictions for sexual assault of a child under Wisconsin law subjected him to a mandatory minimum sentence under the penal‐ ty‐enhancement provision of the federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2). That provision provides that if a person con‐ victed of possession of child pornography “has a prior con‐ viction … under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals