United States v. Caceres-Olla, 738 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2013) (Florida conviction for "lewd and lascivious battery," in violation of Florida Statutes 800.04(4)(a) [[e]ngag[ing] in sexual activity with a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age.], did not categorically constitute a crime of violence for illegal reentry sentencing purposes, since lack of consent is not an element of the crime; nor is the statute divisible, so the modified categorical analysis cannot be employed); United States v. Gomez"Mendez, 486 F.3d 599, 604 (9th Cir. 2007) (Florida conviction of lewd and lascivious battery, in violation of Fla. Stat. 800.04(4)(a) is a strict liability crime[,] criminalizing [e]ngag[ing] in sexual activity with a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age, ibid., regardless of whether the victim, in fact, consents); see United States v. Rangel"Castaneda, 709 F.3d 373, 376 (4th Cir.2013) (Tennessee conviction of sexual penetration ... when the victim is at least thirteen (13) but less than eighteen (18) years of age and the defendant is at least ten (10) years older than the victim. did not categorically constitute a crime of violence as a forcible sex offense under the guidelines because the fact that Tennessee law renders the consent of a statutory rape victim formally irrelevant does not mean that the offense necessarily requires sexual conduct that is forcible ..."that is, involving actual compulsion.);
The court reasoned:
First, the absence of a consent defense to statutory rape is analytically distinct from situations in which a victim's consent ... is [deemed] not legally valid, such as where consent to the conduct is involuntary, incompetent, or coerced. U.S.S.G. 2L1.2 cmt. n. 1(B)(iii). The three examples cited by the Sentencing Commission, see supra at pp. 1054"55, involve instances in which the victim does not in fact have the state of mind of willing acquiescence"either because her consent is coerced, or because her actual state of mind is such that she is not capable of willingly consenting, as in the case of incompetence or intoxication. We have acknowledged, however, that the assumption that a minor's legal incapacity implies that the proscribed sexual intercourse is non-consensual does not always hold true[.] Valencia v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir.2006). Some minors are able to engage in sexual intercourse voluntarily, despite being legally incapable of consent. Id. In other words, because statutory rape is a strict liability crime, the minor's actual state of mind does not matter, nor does the minor's actual capacity for mature deliberation.
.
The term statutory rape is ordinarily, contemporarily, and commonly understood to mean the unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under the age of consent specified by state statute. Gomez"Mendez, 486 F.3d at 603. If all sex offenses where consent ... is not legally valid on the basis of age are, by definition, forcible, there would be no need to separately enumerate statutory rape. See U.S.S.G. 2L1.2 cmt. n. 1(B)(iii). The same would be true of sexual abuse of a minor, whereby we define the term abuse ... in light of the age of the victim in question, United States v. Medina"Villa, 567 F.3d 507, 513 (9th Cir.2009), and have held that [s]exual conduct with younger children is per se abusive[,] Valencia"Barragan, 608 F.3d at 1107.
A statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant. Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303, 314, 129 S.Ct. 1558, 173 L.Ed.2d 443 (2009) (citations and quotation marks omitted). This basic interpretive canon [,] id., applies to the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Wenner, 351 F.3d 969, 974"75 (9th Cir.2003). Yet, when asked at argument, the government could identify no circumstance in which a statutory rape would not also be a forcible sex offense under its interpretation. Nor can we. It is our duty to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 174, 121 S.Ct. 2120, 150 L.Ed.2d 251 (2001) (citations and quotation marks omitted). We are reluctan[t] to treat ... as surplusage, id., the Guidelines' enumeration of statutory rape and sexual abuse of a minor as separate crimes of violence.
Third, deeming as forcible sex offenses all sexual acts with persons under the age of majority would ignore contemporary limitations on the concept of statutory rape. In particular, there has been a move among the states to reform statutory rape laws in cases involving partners of a similar age"for instance, foreclosing prosecutions of 16"year"olds for heavy petting with 14"year"olds, or reducing sentences of 19"year"olds for sexual intercourse with 17"year"olds. See, e.g., Charles A. Phipps, Misdirected Reform: On Regulating Consensual Sexual Activity Between Teenagers, 12 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 373, 390"91 (2003). In recognition of this growing consensus, we have held that, for federal purposes, an age difference of at least four years is an element of sexual abuse of a minor, Estrada"Espinoza v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147, 1158 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc), and of statutory rape as well, United States v. Gomez, 732 F.3d 971, 988"89 (9th Cir.2013).
Reading the term forcible sex offenses"which requires no age difference"to encompass all sexual conduct with minors, would obliterate those limitations. A so-called Romeo"and"Juliet offender[,] Doe v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 490 F.3d 491, 503 (6th Cir.2007), could be deemed to have been convicted of a forcible sex offense by virtue of the victim's age, despite being expressly and intentionally excluded from the generic federal definitions of statutory rape and sexual abuse of a minor.
(Ibid. at 1055-1056.)
