USA v. Portanova

Portanova pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), (b)(1)). The District Court found he had a prior conviction in PA for possessing and distributing child pornography. Thus the District Court applied a statutory sentencing enhancement.  Potanova appealed and asserted that the District Court should have applied the formal categorical approach and construed “relating to” narrowly. Because the Pennsylvania child pornography statute criminalizes conduct not covered under federal law, he argued, it could not constitute a § 2252(b)(1) predicate offense. 
The Court applied a broader reading of “relating to” and concluded that Portanova had a prior conviction “relating to” the child pornography offenses described in § 2252(b)(1).

Portanova