18 U.S.C. § 2426
Repeat offenders
2024—Subsec. (b)(1)(B). Pub. L. 118–159 inserted “or the Uniform Code of Military Justice” after “State law”.
2018—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 115–392, § 11(2)(A), substituted “3 times” for “twice”.
Subsec. (b)(1)(B). Pub. L. 115–392, § 11(2)(B), substituted “subparagraph (A)” for “paragraph (1)”.
2008—Subsec. (b)(1)(A). Pub. L. 110–457 substituted “chapter 110, or section 1591” for “or chapter 110”.
2003—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108–21 inserted “, unless section 3559(e) applies” before period at end.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 67
cases (18 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2012).
United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2012). “4(A)(i) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 2426 (b)(1)(A) (specifying federal offenses listed under chapters 109A, 110, 117, or section 1591 of title 18 of the United States Code)), but also conduct violating state law that would have constituted one of these specified federal offenses “if the…”
United States v. William Dahl, 833 F.3d 345 (3rd Cir. 2016). “4 IL Dahl contends the District Court committed plain error by failing to apply the categorical approach in determining whether his Delaware first- and third-degree unlawful sexual contact convictions constitute federal sex offense convictions under the federal repeat offender…”
United States v. Anthony Phillips, 431 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2005). “without regard to whether the occasion (I) occurred during the course of the instant offense; or (II) resulted in a conviction for the conduct that occurred on that occasion.” Id. § 4B1.5 cmt. n. 4(B)(ii).”
United States v. Justyn Perez-Colon, 62 F.4th 805 (3rd Cir. 2023). “Where, as here, the defendant’s conduct can only qualify as “prohibited sexual conduct” if it constituted an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 2426 (b)(1)(B), the court must then consider whether the defendant’s conduct fell within one of the listed federal or state crimes.”
United States v. Durham, 902 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir. 2018). “See 18 U.S.C § 2426 (sentencing for repeat offenders); id.”
United States v. Tyler M. Leach, 491 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 2007). “In the plea agreement, Leach acknowledged that he was subject to a 5-year minimum and a 60-year maximum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 2426 (a) because his federal “offense occurred after [Leach] had a prior sex offense conviction.”
United States v. Aaron Wikkerink, 841 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2016). “” A prior “sex offense conviction” is defined by reference to 18 U.S.C. § 2426 (b)(1), see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.”
United States v. Bennett, 823 F.3d 1316 (10th Cir. 2016). “§ 3559 (e)(2) (defining “state sex offense” as one that “consists of -14- conduct that would be a Federal sex offense”); 18 U.S.C. § 2426 (b)(1)(B) (defining “prior sex offense conviction” as an offense “consisting of conduct that would have been an offense under [this chapter,…”
United States v. Blum, 534 F.3d 608 (7th Cir. 2008). ““Prohibited sexual conduct” is defined as: (i) any offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 2426 (b)(1)(A) or (B); (ii) the production of child pornography; or (iii) trafficking in child pornography only if, prior to the commission of the instant offense of conviction, the defendant…”
United States v. Deronarte Norwood, 982 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir. 2020). “5 defines “prohibited sexual conduct” to include any offense listed in the “repeat offender” statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2426 (b)(1)(A), which in turn includes of‐ fenses under Chapter 109A of Title 18 and conduct that would constitute a Chapter 109A offense but for the lack of a…”
United States v. Maldonado-Burgos, 844 F.3d 339 (1st Cir. 2016). “In reaching the same conclusion, the district court also relied on the 1998 amendment to § 2423(a), another provision of the Mann Act, and the enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 2426 , In 1998, Congress amended § 2423(a) to increase the maximum penalty for that offense.”
United States v. Michael Portanova, 961 F.3d 252 (3rd Cir. 2020). “Similarly, 18 U.S.C. § 2426 (b)(1)(B) defines “‘prior sex offense conviction’ as an offense ‘consisting of conduct that would have been an offense under [this chapter, chapter 109A, chapter 110, or section 1591].”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.