## Facts

- Avondale Lockhart was convicted in 2000 in New York state court of first-degree sexual abuse involving his adult girlfriend.
- In 2011, he was federally indicted in the Eastern District of New York for attempted receipt and possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (a)(4)(B).
- Lockhart pleaded guilty to possession; the government dismissed the attempted-receipt count.
- The sentencing dispute concerned whether 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2) imposed a 10-year mandatory minimum based on a prior state conviction “relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward.”
- The district court treated Lockhart’s prior adult-victim sexual-abuse conviction as a qualifying predicate and imposed the mandatory minimum.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, interpreting “involving a minor or ward” to modify only “abusive sexual conduct.”

## Issues

1. Whether, in 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2), the phrase “involving a minor or ward” modifies all three predicates (“aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct”) or only the last (“abusive sexual conduct”).
2. Whether Lockhart’s prior state conviction for sexual abuse involving an adult triggers § 2252(b)(2)’s 10-year mandatory minimum for child-pornography possession.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit.
- The Court held that “involving a minor or ward” modifies only the final item in the list, “abusive sexual conduct,” not “aggravated sexual abuse” or “sexual abuse.”
- Applying the rule of the last antecedent, the Court read the trailing modifier as attaching to the phrase it immediately follows.
- The Court concluded that ordinary interpretive tools resolved the statute’s meaning; the rule of lenity did not apply.
- Lockhart’s prior conviction for “sexual abuse” qualified as a predicate under § 2252(b)(2), making the 10-year mandatory minimum lawful.
- Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Breyer, dissented, reading the modifier to apply to the entire series and, at minimum, finding ambiguity requiring lenity.

## Legal Principles

- Under the rule of the last antecedent, a trailing modifier ordinarily applies only to the noun or phrase it immediately follows, absent contextual indications to the contrary.
- The series-qualifier canon may apply in some settings, but it does not displace the last-antecedent rule when grammar and statutory context support the narrower attachment.
- Statutory context and structure can confirm grammatical readings, including where a statute combines defined and undefined terms and uses both federal and state predicate offenses.
- The rule of lenity applies only when, after applying ordinary interpretive tools, a criminal statute remains grievously ambiguous; it is not triggered merely because competing readings are plausible.

## Conclusion

The Court interpreted § 2252(b)(2) to require that only the “abusive sexual conduct” predicate involve a minor or ward, thereby permitting prior state convictions for “sexual abuse” involving adults to trigger the 10-year mandatory minimum for child-pornography possession.


Lockhart v. United States, 577 U.S. 347 (2016)