Lamar Allen Thompson was convicted in federal court for the production and possession of child pornography. His sentencing was complicated by a prior 2016 state conviction in King County, Washington, for first-degree child molestation. At the federal sentencing hearing, the government argued that this prior state conviction triggered a mandatory minimum sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e), which increases the minimum term from 15 to 25 years for defendants with certain prior convictions. Thompson contested this, arguing his state conviction did not match the federal definition. Additionally, Thompson faced pending state charges and a revoked suspended sentence, leading him to request that the federal court recommend his sentence run concurrently with those anticipated state terms. The district court declined to make any recommendation on concurrency, leaving the decision to state courts, and imposed a 28-year sentence. Thompson appealed both the application of the mandatory minimum enhancement and the district court's silence on concurrent sentencing.
The panel addressed two distinct legal issues. First, regarding the mandatory minimum, the court applied de novo review to determine if Thompson's prior Washington conviction for first-degree child molestation under § 9A.44.083 matched the generic offenses listed in 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e). The court utilized the categorical approach, comparing the elements of the state statute to the federal generic definitions of 'sexual abuse' and 'abusive sexual contact involving a minor.' The court found that the Washington statute requires sexual contact for the purpose of gratification and applies only to victims under age 12. This satisfied the 'sexual conduct' and 'abuse' elements of the Medina-Villa generic definition of sexual abuse. Furthermore, the court held that the statute either categorically matches or at least 'relates to' the generic offense of abusive sexual contact involving a minor, noting that the statute's scope regarding 'intimate parts' is sufficiently narrow to fall within the federal 'relating to' provision. Second, regarding the concurrent sentencing argument, the court applied plain error review because Thompson failed to object to the district court's decision not to make a recommendation. The court found no plain error, citing Supreme Court precedent in Setser v. United States, which confirms that district courts have discretion to refrain from making recommendations on concurrency with anticipated state sentences, particularly when they lack adequate information.
Thompson's 28-year federal sentence is affirmed and remains in effect. The decision clarifies that Washington's first-degree child molestation statute qualifies for the federal mandatory minimum enhancement under § 2251(e). It also reinforces that federal district courts have broad discretion to decline making recommendations on concurrent sentencing with anticipated state sentences, and defendants must preserve such arguments at the district court level to avoid plain error review on appeal. The case is remanded to the district court for any further proceedings consistent with the affirmation of the sentence.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download