United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 22-1390

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

SEAN J. TRAHAN,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

Before

Montecalvo, Selya, and Lynch, Circuit Judges.

William W. Fick, with whom Fick & Marx LLP was on brief, for appellant. Alexia R. De Vincentis, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Joshua S. Levy, Acting United States Attorney, was on brief, for appellee.

August 8, 2024 MONTECALVO, Circuit Judge. In October 2021,

defendant-appellant Sean J. Trahan pleaded guilty to possession

and knowing access with intent to view child pornography, both in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). The district court later

sentenced Trahan to 126 months' imprisonment -- applying a

sentencing enhancement based on Trahan's prior state conviction

for possession of "visual material of child depicted in sexual

conduct" that the court determined required the imposition of a

ten-year mandatory minimum under § 2252A(b)(2).1 On appeal from

his sentence, Trahan insists that his state conviction should not

have triggered the ten-year mandatory minimum because the

enhancement provision of § 2252A(b)(2) cannot cover state

1We note that the terminology used across the states to describe "child pornography" is wide-ranging and many states have opted to use terms other than "child pornography." See, e.g.,

-5b-201(2) (criminalizing possession of "child sexual abuse material"); Ala. Code § 13A-12-191 (criminalizing "[d]issemination or public display of obscene matter containing visual depiction of persons under 17 years of age involved in obscene acts");

(criminalizing "[p]ossession of child pornography");

(criminalizing possession of "visual depiction" of "sexual exploitation of a minor");

(criminalizing possession of images "depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child");

(criminalizing possession of "[o]bscene matter depicting sexual conduct by minor"); cf. EARN IT Act of 2023, S. 1207, 118th Cong. § 6 (2023) (proposing that federal statutes replace the term "child pornography" with "child sexual abuse material," while retaining "the same legal meaning"). Here, we do not attempt to reconcile these many terms and, for clarity's sake, use, as appropriate, the terminology that Congress and the Massachusetts legislature have adopted.

- 2 - convictions under statutes that criminalize more conduct than

§ 2252A(b)(2) enumerates.

Trahan also mounts an Alleyne challenge to the district

court's imposition of a consecutive six-month sentence pursuant to

for an offense he committed while on pretrial

release. See Alleyne v. United States,

(2013). Trahan

argues that, because of the application of the § 2252A(b)(2)

mandatory minimum, the additional consecutive sentence based on an

uncharged violation violated the Sixth Amendment. For the reasons

that follow, we reject Trahan's arguments and affirm the sentence.

I. Background

As this appeal follows a guilty plea, our recitation of

the facts is derived from "the undisputed sections of the

presentence investigation report [('PSR')] and the transcripts of

the change-of-plea and sentencing hearings." United States v.

Spinks,

(1st Cir. 2023) (cleaned up) (quoting

United States v. Ubiles-Rosario,

, 280 n.2 (1st Cir.

2017)).

In 2015, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI")

initiated Operation Pacifier, a nationwide investigation targeting

online access to images of minors engaged in "sexually explicit

conduct."

(8). As part of that investigation,

the FBI identified an internet protocol ("IP") address associated

with Trahan that had been used to access over 400 online

- 3 - conversations with links to child pornography. The FBI executed

a search warrant of the home linked to the IP address and found a

computer, which Trahan admitted having exclusive access to and

which contained "approximately ten images of child pornography."

Following the search, FBI agents arrested Trahan.

On October 27, 2020, a grand jury indicted Trahan on one

count of possession of child pornography (count I) and one count

of knowing access with intent to view child pornography (count

II), both in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B).2 In

November, Trahan pleaded not guilty and was released with pretrial

conditions.

On September 8, 2021, following up on information from

an out-of-state sheriff's office regarding an online chat group

that contained child pornography, the FBI executed another search

warrant of Trahan's house. This search yielded a tablet computer,

which Trahan's pretrial conditions prohibited him from possessing.

A search of the tablet revealed online conversations in which

another user sent Trahan videos of child pornography. Trahan was

then arrested and held in federal custody.

This was the second indictment related to the 2015 arrest. 2

Trahan was originally indicted in November 2015. In the first proceeding, the district court granted Trahan's motion to dismiss the indictment for violations of the Speedy Trial Act,

et seq., and dismissed the case without prejudice.

- 4 - The government later filed a superseding information

that realleged counts I and II and added a second count of

possession of child pornography based on the 2021 arrest (count

III). Count III did not allege that Trahan committed the offense

while on pretrial release nor did it reference

,

the statute outlining the penalty for offenses committed while on

release. Trahan waived his right to an indictment, consented to

prosecution by information, and pleaded guilty to all three counts

without a plea agreement.

During the change-of-plea hearing, the government listed

the range of possible criminal penalties, providing that each count

"carries a mandatory minimum of ten years in prison because . . .

Trahan has a prior state . . . conviction" for possession of visual

material of child depicted in sexual conduct. Specifically with

respect to count III, the government noted that Trahan committed

the offense while on pretrial release, thus requiring additional

imprisonment that "shall be consecutive to any other sentence of

imprisonment" under § 3147. The government also summarized the

facts that would support a conviction for count III. In

particular, the government explained that when "the FBI obtained

a search warrant for . . . Trahan's house and executed it on

September 8, 2021," based on information regarding online child

pornography sharing, "Trahan had been out on bail." After the

- 5 - government provided the summary, Trahan agreed that it was a true

description of the offenses.

As alluded to, these were not Trahan's first offenses

involving images of children engaged in sexual conduct. In 2006,

Trahan was convicted in Massachusetts state court of "possession

of visual material of child depicted in sexual conduct" in

violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 29C ("§ 29C").

Accordingly, the PSR that the United States Probation Office for

the District of Massachusetts ("Probation") prepared in advance of

sentencing reflected a criminal history category of I and a

mandatory minimum of ten years' incarceration for each count

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2). The PSR also noted that

Trahan was "out on bail" when the FBI executed the September 8,

2021 search warrant and subsequently arrested Trahan. Because

Trahan committed the offense while on pretrial release, the PSR

provided that § 3147 compelled an additional sentence that would

not exceed ten years. The PSR reported a United States Sentencing

Guidelines ("guidelines") range of 121 to 151 months.

Trahan objected to the imposition of the mandatory

minimum, arguing that "the prior conviction is not necessarily one

relating to child pornography as that term is defined under federal

law" because § 29C "criminalizes possession of images containing

content that is not criminalized under the definitions in

governing federal child pornography offenses." In

- 6 - response, Probation explained that it was "not aware of any First

Circuit precedent that has found [§ 29C] to be overbroad in the

context of . . . § 2252A" but deferred resolution of the objection

to the court. Trahan also "object[ed] to the imposition of any

consecutive term of imprisonment under . . . § 3147 arising from"

count III because it "would necessarily have the effect of

increasing the mandatory minimum without a separate charge" in

violation of Alleyne,

. Probation disagreed and made

no change to the report. Trahan did not object to any of the

factual allegations about the September 8, 2021 search warrant.

Also prior to sentencing, the parties filed sentencing

memoranda for the district court's consideration. In its

memorandum, the government agreed with Probation that the

guidelines range was 121 to 151 months and requested a sentence of

126 months -- "120 months concurrent for" each of the three counts

and "6 months consecutive" for Trahan's violation of his pretrial

release conditions. In addressing the applicability of the

mandatory minimum, the government relied on the "relating to"

clause contained in § 2252A(b)(2), arguing that it "allows for [a]

state . . . offense to be [a] close but not necessarily exact"

match to the federal offense. As for the Alleyne challenge, the

government emphasized that "[t]he application note for

[guidelines] § 3C1.3 calls for using the § 3147 enhancement only

as a means of calibrating where within the [guidelines] for the

- 7 - underlying offense to sentence the defendant" and that it was

recommending a sentence at the low end of the guidelines.

For his part, Trahan agreed that the guidelines range

was 121 to 151 months. Assuming the district court denied his

objection to application of the mandatory minimum and his Alleyne

challenge, he requested a sentence of 121 months' imprisonment,

120 months for the three counts and one month consecutive pursuant

to § 3147. But if the district court were to sustain his

objections, he asked for a sixty-month sentence. He then

reiterated his argument that § 2252A's enhancement provision could

not apply in his case because § 29C's definition of "visual

material of child depicted in sexual conduct" is broader than the

federal definition of "child pornography." Thus, he argued that

his prior § 29C conviction did not qualify as a "prior conviction"

under § 2252A. Finally, he argued that the imposition of a

sentence under § 3147 in addition to the mandatory minimum would

increase the mandatory minimum absent a separate charge, thereby

violating his Sixth Amendment rights.

At the sentencing hearing, Trahan again objected to the

imposition of the ten-year mandatory minimum and the additional

sentence under § 3147, relying on the arguments made in his

sentencing memorandum. Through counsel, he requested "the lowest

[sentence] the [district] court c[ould] impose legally."

- 8 - Before issuing the sentence, the district court

determined that the ten-year mandatory minimum applied, explaining

that it agreed with "the majority of circuits that have dealt with

the question," and then explained that it was not persuaded by

Trahan's Alleyne challenge. The district court then sentenced

Trahan to a term of 120 months on each count, to be served

concurrently, and to an additional six months pursuant to § 3147,

to be served consecutively, for a total of 126 months'

imprisonment. Trahan timely appealed.

II. Discussion

Now, Trahan again raises his challenge to the district

court's application of § 2252A(b)(2)'s mandatory minimum and its

imposition of the additional § 3147 sentence. We address each in

turn, and, for the reasons that follow, we reject both claims.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's 126-month sentence.

A. State-Conviction Sentence Enhancement

Trahan argues that Massachusetts' law criminalizing

possession of "visual material of child depicted in sexual

conduct," § 29C, is too broad to trigger the enhancement because

"[i]t criminalizes possession of material that does not

necessarily constitute child pornography as defined in Chapter 110

of the U.S. Code."3 His argument largely turns on whether the

3 In his opening appellate brief, Trahan also argued that § 29C is too broad to trigger the enhancement because "it

- 9 - phrase "relating to" as used in the statute has a broadening effect

or not -- he argues that it does not. Thus, he contends that his

Massachusetts state conviction cannot trigger application of the

§ 2252A(b)(2) enhancement. The government argues that the phrase

carries its usual broadening effect such that Trahan's

Massachusetts conviction triggered the enhancement.

We review this preserved challenge de novo, ultimately

agreeing with the government's interpretation. See United States

v. Rivera-Morales,

(1st Cir. 2020) (holding that in

sentencing appeals, "we review preserved claims of error for abuse

of discretion" but "review . . . questions of law . . . de novo");

United States v. Kennedy,

(1st Cir. 2018)

(explaining that whether statutory mandatory minimum applied is a

legal question to be reviewed de novo).

We begin by setting forth the relevant statutory text.

First, the enhancement itself. In relevant part, § 2252A(b)(2)

provides that:

Whoever violates . . . subsection (a)(5) [(knowing possession of access with intent to

criminalizes an act -- purchase -- that [doe]s not necessarily entail one of the types of conduct enumerated in [§] 2252A(b)(2)." However, Trahan abandoned this argument in his reply brief, acknowledging that "[a] prior offense for 'purchase' of [visual material of child depicted in sexual conduct] is, indeed, an offense 'relating to' the 'production, possession, receipt, mailing[,] sale, distribution, shipment[,] or transportation' of child pornography." (quoting § 2252A(b)(2)). Thus, we need not consider this argument or address the government's contention that it was not preserved for review.

- 10 - view child pornography)] shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than [ten] years, or both, but, . . . if such person has a prior conviction . . . under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward, or the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than [ten] years nor more than [twenty] years.

(Emphases added). Section 2256 of Title 18, which applies to all

of Chapter 110, including § 2252A, defines "child pornography" as

"any visual depiction" of a minor engaged in "sexually explicit

conduct," also specifying the types of depictions and types of

minor involvement (i.e., actual or apparent use of a minor) that

qualify as child pornography. See

(8). As will

become clear, the federal provision defines "sexually explicit

conduct," the essential component of the definition of child

pornography, relatively narrowly. See

Under the federal

definition, "sexually explicit conduct" is limited to:

[A]ctual or simulated -- (i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (ii) bestiality; (iii) masturbation; (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (v) lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person.

§ 2256(2)(A).

- 11 - Section 29C prohibits the knowing purchase or possession

of "visual material of child depicted in sexual conduct,"4

similarly specifying the types of depictions that qualify as

prohibited material. The Massachusetts statute criminalizes

material that depicts a minor who is actually or by simulation:

(i) . . . engaged in any act of sexual intercourse with any person or animal; (ii) . . . engaged in any act of sexual contact involving the sex organs of the child and the mouth, anus or sex organs of the child and the sex organs of another person or animal; (iii) . . . engaged in any act of masturbation; (iv) . . . portrayed as being the object of, or otherwise engaged in, any act of lewd fondling, touching, or caressing involving another person or animal; (v) . . . engaged in any act of excretion or urination within a sexual context; (vi) . . . portrayed or depicted as bound, fettered, or subject to sadistic, masochistic, or sadomasochistic abuse in any sexual context; (vii) depicted or portrayed in any pose, posture or setting involving a lewd exhibition of the unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person is female, a fully or partially developed breast of the child.

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 29C.

Though the parties agree that § 29C covers "a broader

swath of conduct" than § 2252A, we specifically note the main area

4Trahan seems to think that there is something significant about the Massachusetts General Assembly's decision to refrain from using the term "child pornography," but he fails to explain how this should impact our analysis.

- 12 - of divergence between the two laws: the descriptions in subsections

(iv), (v), and (vii) of § 29C clearly cover depictions that would

not be covered by § 2252A (per the definitions provided in

§ 2256(2)(A)). Thus, we accept Trahan's contention that § 29C is

broader than its federal counterpart.

Thus, we turn to the question before us, which is, at

its core, what role the phrase "relating to" plays when it comes

to determining whether a state conviction triggers the federal

sentence enhancement. We conclude that the phrase here takes on

its usual broad meaning and its inclusion means that a state

definition need not be a perfect match with the federal definition

of child pornography in order to trigger application of the

mandatory minimum. Rather, the state crime must merely be "related

to" the federal definition of child pornography. In so concluding,

we join four of the six circuits to have already considered this

question.5 See United States v. Bennett,

(10th

Cir. 2016) (concluding that "the offense need only stand in some

relation to, pertain to, or have a connection with" child

pornography to trigger § 2252A(b)(2)'s enhancement (cleaned up));

5As indicated in each case's parenthetical, many of these circuit opinions addressed

's identically worded enhancement for "certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors."

(emphasis added); see

§ 2252(b)(1). Given the identical operative language, we assume that those circuits would apply the same analysis to § 2252A's enhancement.

- 13 - United States v. Liestman,

(7th Cir. 2024)

(analyzing identical provision in

and concluding

"that 'relating to' . . . brings within the ambit of the

enhancement any prior offense that categorically bears a

connection with . . . 'the production, possession, receipt,

mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child

pornography'"); United States v. Portanova,

(3d

Cir. 2020) (analyzing § 2252's enhancement and concluding that

"the phrase 'relating to' must be read expansively and encompasses

crimes other than those specifically listed in the federal

statutes" (cleaned up)); United States v. Mayokok,

(8th Cir. 2017) (analyzing § 2252's enhancement and

concluding that "'relating to' carries a broad ordinary meaning"

and that state and federal statutes need not "criminalize exactly

the same conduct"). But see United States v. Reinhart,

(9th Cir. 2018) (analyzing § 2252 and concluding that

"relating to" must be read narrowly and requiring a categorical

match between state definition and federal definition of child

pornography); United States v. Davis,

(6th

Cir. 2014) (concluding that state conviction did not trigger

§ 2252's enhancement because state's definition was broader than

federal definition of child pornography).

At first, Trahan asked us to conclude that, in order for

a state crime to "relate to" child pornography, there must be an

- 14 - exact match between the state definition and the federal definition

of child pornography -- or that the state definition cover no more

than the federal definition of child pornography. Seeming to

realize that this construction would be problematic because it

wholly ignores the "relating to" phrase that Congress included in

the provision, Trahan shifted gears in his reply. Trahan argued

there that "relating to" referred only to the actions listed in

§ 2552A(b)(2) -- "production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale,

distribution, shipment, or transportation" -- and not to the object

-- the federal definition of child pornography. Thus, in this

formulation, the action a state law criminalizes need not match

the actions listed in § 2252A(b)(2), but the state definition

cannot be more expansive than the federal definition of child

pornography. Neither argument is availing.

First, Trahan's argument that "relating to" applies only

to the listed actions and not to "child pornography" is both

forfeited and waived because he did not raise the argument below,

see In re Redondo Const. Corp.,

, 121 (1st Cir. 2012)

("It is black-letter law that arguments not presented to the trial

court are, with rare exceptions, forfeit on appeal."), and because

he raised it for the first time in his reply brief, see United

States v. Casey,

(1st Cir. 2016) ("[A]rguments

raised for the first time in an appellate reply brief [are]

- 15 - ordinarily deemed waived.").6 However, even affording Trahan the

benefit of plain error review, his argument cannot prevail. To

succeed under that standard, Trahan must establish "four elements:

'(1) that an error occurred (2) which was clear or obvious and

which not only (3) affected the defendant's substantial rights,

but also (4) seriously impaired the fairness, integrity, or public

reputation of judicial proceedings.'" United States v. Lessard,

(1st Cir. 2022) (quoting United States v. Duarte,

(1st Cir. 2001)). Trahan cannot shoulder this

heavy burden.

Indeed, we can quickly dismiss Trahan's contention that

"relating to" applies only to the actions listed in § 2252A(b)(2)

("production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution,

shipment, or transportation") and not the federal definition of

child pornography. There is no textual indication that "relating

to" refers exclusively to the listed actions, and Trahan has

provided no compelling explanation as to why we should so conclude.

In any event, the series-qualifier canon of statutory

6 At oral argument, Trahan's counsel contended that this was simply an "expansion" of his arguments below and a natural response to the government's responsive brief. We disagree with this description as this argument was self-evident from the beginning and is not a natural counter to the government's position. Nor is it a reframing or expansion of his arguments presented below. Trahan's reply brief presents a wholly new construction of § 2252A that rests on the abandonment of an earlier argument. See supra note 3.

- 16 - interpretation is instructive here. See Antonin Scalia & Bryan A.

Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 147 (2012).

Per that canon, "[w]hen there is a straightforward,

parallel construction that involves all nouns or verbs in a series,

a prepositive or postpositive modifier normally applies to the

entire series." Id. at 147. As with any canon of statutory

interpretation, the series-qualifier canon aims to capture "the

most natural reading of a sentence," Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid,

(2021), but the reading resulting from the canon "is

not an absolute and can assuredly be overcome by other indicia of

meaning," Barnhart v. Thomas,

(2003). Using this

canon, we naturally read § 2252A(b)(2) as providing that the

enhancement is triggered by a prior conviction "relating to" each

and every one of the listed actions in the statute. The result is

any conviction that is related to the production of child

pornography or related to the possession of child pornography (and

so on with respect to the receipt of child pornography, the mailing

of child pornography, the sale of child pornography, the

distribution of child pornography, the shipment of child

pornography, or the transportation of child pornography) would

call for applying the sentencing enhancement. As we will explain,

the statutory context and legislative history likewise compel us

to conclude that "relating to" modifies both the listed action and

the statutorily defined noun (child pornography).

- 17 - Thus, we turn to Trahan's original argument and the focus

of this appeal: does "relating to" retain its ordinary broad

meaning? Here, we begin with the important presumption of

statutory construction that "unless otherwise defined, words will

be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, and common

meaning." Perrin v. United States,

(1979). It is

well established that the phrase "relating to" has a broad meaning.

See Silva v. Garland,

(1st Cir. 2022) ("[T]he

ordinary meaning of the phrase 'relating to' is 'a broad one

. . . .'" (quoting Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,

(1992))); United States v. Winczuk,

(1st Cir. 2023) ("[W]hen asked to interpret statutory language

including the phrase 'relating to,' . . . [the Supreme] Court has

typically read the relevant text expansively." (quoting Lamar,

Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling,

(2018))

(alterations in original)).

In Mellouli v. Lynch, however, the Supreme Court

explained that "relating to" does not always have a broadening

effect and that statutory context and history can counsel in favor

of a narrow reading of the phrase. See

(2015). Trahan relies in part on Mellouli, arguing that contextual

indicia require construing "relating to" narrowly here. In

Mellouli, the Supreme Court analyzed a statute that subjected a

non-citizen to deportation based on a "convict[ion] of a violation

- 18 - of . . . any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or

a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined

in [the federal Controlled Substances Act])."

(emphasis

added) (quoting

(a)(2)(B)(i)). The petitioner was

convicted of a state offense for possession of drug paraphernalia

-- specifically, a sock that concealed a substance categorized as

a controlled substance under state law but not federal law. See

. The Court held that § 1227's use of "relating to"

did not have its ordinary broad meaning but instead warranted

application of the strict categorical approach such that a state

crime must criminalize no more than the federal law in order to

trigger removal. See id. at 803. In particular, the Court pointed

to the statute's "historical background" as evidence that

"Congress and the [Board of Immigrations Appeals] have long

required a direct link between [a non-citizen's] crime of

conviction and a particular federally controlled drug." Id. at

812. Without such a link in the petitioner's case, the Court

concluded that removal was only appropriate where a non-citizen

had been convicted of a drug offense for a drug listed in the

federal Controlled Substances Act. See id. at 813.

Trahan contends that Mellouli is controlling here. But

unlike

, the statute at issue in Mellouli, the

text and context of § 2252A are entirely consistent with "relating

to" having a broadening effect rather than a narrowing one.

- 19 - To begin, the Court in Mellouli acknowledged that the

phrase "relating to" generally has a broadening effect, but the

Court also made clear that "relating to" does not have a static

statutory definition; rather, context, which includes legislative

history, may dictate the extent to which the term broadens or

narrows the statute's coverage. See id. at 811–12. So Trahan is

incorrect to read Mellouli as establishing a new definition of the

phrase.

Here, the context of § 2252A points toward using the

term's usual broadening effect. First, the history of § 2252A and

surrounding statutes evinces Congress's intent to expand criminal

liability for child-pornography offenses and to widen the breadth

of conduct that can trigger mandatory minimums for federal crimes

involving child pornography. See, e.g., Child Protection Act of

1984,

2-5,

, 204-05 (1984)

(removing "for the purpose of sale or distribution for sale" and

"for pecuniary profit" from § 2252 to ensure both commercial and

noncommercial conduct covered); Crime Control Act of 1990,

(a)(4),

, 4818-19 (1990) (adding

simple possession to § 2252); Violent Crime Control and Law

Enforcement Act of 1994,

(e), 108

- 20 - Stat. 1796, 2036-37 (1994) (adding attempt and conspiracy to

§ 2252).7

In part, these efforts sought to address the

"misconception" that child-pornography offenses "are not serious"

and are, accordingly, subject to lenient sentences. See, e.g.,

H.R. Rep. No. 108-66, at 51 (2003). An expansive reading of

§ 2252A(b)(2)'s "relating to" neatly aligns with Congress's intent

to dispel such a misconception. Indeed, Trahan's reading of the

statute makes little sense given that, at the time this provision

became law, a majority of states had broader definitions of what

constitutes child pornography than the then-newly-enacted federal

definition of child pornography.8 Trahan's approach would thus

7 We note here that "the difference [between § 2252 and § 2252A] is that the former statute is directed only to depictions of actual minors while the latter includes [minors] but extends also to those who only appear to be minors or are fictitious creations but appear real." United States v. Hilton,

(1st Cir. 2001). 8 When the pertinent language was added to § 2252A(b)(2) in 1996, at least thirty-one states had definitions of material depicting children engaged in sexual conduct that were broader than the federal definition of child pornography. See § 2252A(b)(2) (1996) (adding state conviction "relating to" child pornography to enhancement provision); § 2256(8) (current version substantially similar to that in effect in 1996). See also 1990 Alaska Sess. Laws Ch. 161, § 1 (including "lewd touching of" a person or child's "breast");

(including "defecation or urination");

(including "[l]ewd exhibition of . . . the breast of a female");

(including "[d]efecation or urination");

-39 (including "touching . . . clothed or unclothed . . . buttocks [or] breasts");

(1977) (including "nudity");

(including "contact with . . . clothed or unclothed . . . buttocks[] or . . . breast"); 1987 Ga.

- 21 - Laws 1165 (including "[p]hysical contact . . . with . . . buttocks[] or . . . nude breasts");

(including touching of buttocks or breasts and display of breasts);

(including "lewd exhibition of the unclothed . . . buttocks[] or . . . breast");

(including "any fondling or touching of a child . . . intended to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the other person");

(including "nudity of a minor");

(including "excretion" and "exposure . . . of the unclothed or apparently unclothed . . . buttocks[] or the female breast");

-58 (including "exhibition in a state of nudity");

(including "touching . . . clothed or unclothed . . . buttocks[] or . . . breasts" and "passive sexual involvement");

(including "[p]hysical contact or simulated physical contact with the clothed or unclothed . . . buttocks . . . or the breasts");

(including "[f]ondling or other erotic touching of the . . . buttocks . . . or breast");

(including "any touching of . . . the breast . . . [or any such touching through the clothing]" (alteration in original));

(including "lewd exhibition of the . . . breasts . . . or other intimate parts" and "defecation [and] urination");

(including "display of . . . the human female breasts");

(including "excretion");

(including "[n]udity");

(including "[u]ncovered, or less than opaquely covered . . . buttocks[] or the nipple or any portion of the areola of the human female breast");

(including "any touching of an erogenous zone of another, including without limitation the thigh, genitals, buttock, pubic region, or, if the person is a female, a breast, for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying either person");

(including "any act of excretion in the context of sexual activity");

(including "nudity");

(including "touching . . . of the clothed or unclothed . . . buttocks . . . or the clothed or unclothed breasts");

(including "physical contact with or touching of . . . clothed or unclothed . . . buttocks[] or breasts");

(including "nudity") &

(defining "nudity" to include "a state of undress so as to expose the . . . buttocks with less than a full opaque covering[] or the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple"); 1989 Wa. Sess. Laws 161 (including "defecation or urination");

(including "[e]xcretory functions in a sexual context").

- 22 - preclude the government from applying the enhancement in any

instance where the state law included a broader definition than

the federal statute -- flying in the face of clear congressional

intent.

Finally, unlike Mellouli, "a broad reading of the

enhancement provision does not stretch [§ 2552A] 'to the breaking

point.'"9 Bennett,

(quoting Mellouli,

). Thus, Mellouli does not require a narrow reading of

§ 2252A(b)(2)'s "relating to," and we conclude that it carries its

usual broad meaning. We thus join the other courts of appeals

that have read Mellouli as turning not on the definition of

"relating to" but on the particular removal statute's surrounding

9 Other courts have found significant that § 2252A has no "link" to § 2256's definition of child pornography. In other words, courts have emphasized that § 2252A(b)(2) does not cite to the specific subsection of § 2256 that defines child pornography. See, e.g., United States v. Bennett,

(10th Cir. 2016). In Bennett, the Tenth Circuit emphasized that the statute at issue in Mellouli explicitly "linked" to the federal definition, thereby creating an explicit limiting principle for the phrase "relating to" vis-à-vis federal drug regulations.

(citing Mellouli v. Lynch,

, 808 n.9 (2015))). We find little to no significance in the fact that § 2252A(b)(2) does not specifically cite to § 2256 as § 2256 makes clear that it applies to all statutes within Chapter 110 (where § 2252A also appears). The statute at issue in Mellouli, however, was the Immigration and Nationality Act (contained in Title 8) and the referenced statute, the Controlled Substances Act (contained in Title 21), was in an entirely different title. Mellouli,

. Thus, the statute had to provide a direct "link" to the controlling definition. Here, the federal child pornography definition similarly provides a controlling definition, but that does not counsel in favor of a narrower reading of the phrase "relating to" especially given the text and context of the statute.

- 23 - text and history. See United States v. Kraemer,

(7th Cir. 2019); United States v. Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 2015); Bennett,

.

Thus, having decided that § 2252A(b)(2)'s enhancement

can be triggered by a broader state law because the phrase

"relating to" has a broadening effect, we turn to whether § 29C's

definition of "visual material of child depicted in sexual conduct"

categorically relates to "child pornography" as defined by federal

law. We need not spend much time on whether the Massachusetts

definition of "visual material of child depicted in sexual conduct"

relates to the federal definition of "child pornography" as the

core purposes of the statutes are the same -- both address the

market for images of sexual abuse of children. Furthermore, Trahan

makes no argument that the Massachusetts definition is not related

to the federal definition -- he relies only on his argument that

"relating to" does not extend past the listed actions and does not

carry its usual broadening effect.

For these reasons, we affirm the district court's

application of § 2252A(b)(2)'s 10-year mandatory minimum.

B. Alleyne Challenge

Trahan next argues that, if we affirm the district

court's imposition of the mandatory minimum, the sentencing

court's additional imposition of the six-month consecutive

sentence for the offense Trahan committed while on release violated

- 24 - his Sixth Amendment rights. See Alleyne,

. Under

Alleyne, "any fact leading to the imposition of a mandatory minimum

sentence must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt."

Butterworth v. United States,

(1st Cir. 2015)

(emphasis added).

Trahan contends that, because he was not charged with

violating § 3147 -- but was instead charged with an additional

possession charge -- the district court's decision to impose an

additional six-month sentence pursuant to § 3147 violated Alleyne.

It is not clear whether Trahan is arguing that § 3147, the

enhancement statute, had to be included as a separate charge in

the information or whether he is arguing that the mere fact that

he committed the second possession violation while on pretrial

release had to be charged. To the extent Trahan seeks to argue

the former, his argument fails on its face. Alleyne deals with

uncharged facts, not uncharged enhancement statutes. Moreover,

Trahan has failed to support or fully explain this argument, and,

so, we treat it "as insufficiently developed and, thus, waived."

United States v. Boudreau,

(1st Cir. 2023). To

the extent Trahan seeks to argue the latter, we conclude that any

error was harmless.10

10 For the purposes of harmless error review, we assume without

deciding that the additional sentence violated Alleyne. Further, we need not decide whether, as the government contends, that, even assuming that § 3147 effectively raised the mandatory minimum,

- 25 - Preserved Alleyne challenges are reviewed de novo. See

United States v. Gonzalez,

(1st Cir. 2020). In

this Circuit, it is well established that Alleyne challenges are

subject to harmless error review. See United States v. McIvery,

(1st Cir. 2015); see also Erlinger v. United

States, 602 U.S. --,

, 1860 (2024) (Roberts, C.J.,

concurring);

(Jackson, J., dissenting).

Where, as here, the [claimed] error is of constitutional dimension and has been preserved below, the harmless error standard requires the government to "prove that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, or, put another way, that it can fairly be said beyond any reasonable doubt that the assigned error did not contribute to the result of which the appellant complains."

McIvery,

(quoting United States v. Pérez-Ruiz,

(1st Cir. 2003)). When reviewing Alleyne challenges

for harmless error, "overwhelming evidence" of the uncharged fact

at issue "generally serves as a proxy for determining whether the

Alleyne error contributed to the result."

at 650-51 (quoting

United States v. Morris,

(1st Cir. 2015)). Put

simply, the question under harmless error is whether there is

"overwhelming evidence," id. at 650, of the uncharged fact -- here,

whether Trahan committed count III while on pretrial release.11 If

Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

(1998), provides an exception to Alleyne. 11Trahan argues that any error could not be harmless because he received six additional months of incarceration pursuant to

- 26 - there is overwhelming evidence of that fact, Trahan suffered no

violation of his Sixth Amendment rights.

Here, the government has established overwhelming

evidence that Trahan committed count III while on pretrial release.

Specifically, at Trahan's change-of-plea hearing, the government

stated that Trahan was "out on bail" during the September 8, 2021

search, which resulted in count III of the information, and Trahan

agreed that this allegation was true. Cf. United States v.

Jiminez,

(1st Cir. 2007) (concluding that there

was "sufficient factual basis" for defendant's guilty plea where

he "conceded" " government's proffered facts . . . to be true").

Further, the PSR also provided that Trahan was "out on bail" when

the FBI executed the September 8, 2021 search, and Trahan did not

object to that statement either. See United States v. Bregnard,

(1st Cir. 1991) ("Time and again we have held

that facts stated in presentence reports are deemed admitted if

they are not challenged in the district court."). These two

admissions constitute "overwhelming evidence" that Trahan

committed count III while on pretrial release. Therefore, any

error was harmless.

§ 3147, arguing that the additional sentence constitutes harm. This misconstrues the focus of the harmlessness inquiry in Alleyne challenges. As the government points out, Trahan's argument on harmlessness only addresses whether there was an Alleyne error, not whether any Alleyne error was harmless.

- 27 - III. Conclusion

For the forgoing reasons, we affirm Trahan's sentence.

- 28 -