Johel Contreras v. Eric Holder, Jr.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a Virginia statute that criminalizes carnal knowledge of a child without regard to the defendant’s knowledge constitutes “sexual abuse of a minor”
• suggesting that Rodriguez- 23 Rodriguez’s definition may “not [be] a reasonable one”
• comparing Virginia statute of conviction for “carnal knowledge of child between thirteen and fifteen years of age” to § 3509 to find conviction qualifies as sexual abuse of a minor
• “Here, there is no question that Congress has not directly spoken on the definition of sexual abuse of a minor.”
• “[A] sexual act does not require physical contact with a minor to be abusive, since psychological harm may occur even without such contact and can be equally abusive”. (citing Zavala- Sustaita, 214 F.3d at 604–05)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).