The case of Jordan Winczuk, who pleaded guilty on October 27, 2021, to attempted sexual exploitation of a minor and the commission of a crime involving a minor, requiring him to register as a sex offender, raises widespread prison questions about the interpretation of sentencing provisions.
Winczuk’s charm challenges the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence of 35 years under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e), arguing that the word “relating to the sexual exploitation of children” applies entirely to the production of child pornography.

This blog aims to provide an overview of the case, the information underlying Winczuk’s guilty plea, and the criminal arguments related to translating the sentencing provisions.

I. Background:

A. Winczuk’s Actions and Prior Convictions:

The case revolves around Winczuk’s disturbing actions, as he initiated explicit conversations with an 11-year-old boy on Instagram, posing as “Joey Carson.” Winczuk’s messages escalated from grooming to soliciting explicit images from the child.
Fortunately, the child’s mother intervened, leading to Winczuk’s identification and further arrest. Importantly, Winczuk was previously convicted in New Jersey of sexual offenses with minors, along with sexual assault and sharing child pornography.

B. Federal Charges and Penalties:

In 2019, a federal grand jury indicted Winczuk on charges related to attempted sexual exploitation of a minor and committing a felony despite being required to register as a sex offender. In October 2021, Winczuk pleaded guilty to all counts.
At sentencing, he challenged the imposition of a 35-year mandatory minimum according to § 2251 letter e) with the fact that he must only engage in the production of child pornography.

II. Legal Arguments:

A. Winczuk’s Appeal:

Winczuk’s number one contention is that the word “referring to the sexual exploitation of children” in § 2251(e) should be construed narrowly to best cover the production of child pornography.
He argues that his prior convictions for sexual assault and sharing child pornography do not fall within that narrow definition. In particular, Winczuk cites the Ninth Circuit’s decision, United States v. Schopp, to support his position.

B. Interpretation of § 2251(e):

The key criminal question in this case revolves around the interpretation of § 2251 letter E). Winczuk’s argument runs counter to the perspectives of more than one circuit, such as the Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits, which have held that “sexual exploitation of minors” includes a broader range of deceptive sexual conduct involving children.

III. Analysis:

A. Plain Text Interpretation:

The court’s analysis involves interpreting the plain text of § 2251(e) and determining the scope of “sexual exploitation of children.” The court rejects Winczuk’s narrow interpretation, asserting that the phrase unambiguously refers to any criminal sexual conduct involving children. The court draws support from dictionary definitions and statutory context, emphasizing the broad intent of Congress in criminalizing a range of sexual conduct related to minors.

B. Legislative History:

Examining the legislative history of § 2251(e), the court notes that Congress repeatedly amended the statute to expand its substantive reach and add predicates for recidivist enhancements.
The court highlights that Congress intended to broaden the statute, not narrow it, supporting the interpretation that “sexual exploitation of children” includes various forms of criminal sexual conduct.

C. Rejection of Winczuk’s Arguments:

The court dismisses Winczuk’s reliance on the title of § 2251, the definition of “exploitation” in another statute (§ 3509), and the 2006 Adam Walsh Act. It emphasizes that these arguments are not persuasive and do not alter the plain meaning of “sexual exploitation of children.”


The courtroom’s choice to uphold a mandatory minimum sentence of 35-12 months for Jordan Winczuk underscores a broader interpretation of “child sexual exploitation.” The case serves as a reminder of the legal complexities involved in decoding statutory language and the importance of considering legislative motive and context in tort provisions.
Allied Outsourcing, a leading prison services outsourcing organization, plays a critical role in navigating the complex legal landscape, particularly in cases involving critical fraud crimes, including those presented in the Jordan Winczuk case.
By providing a range of prison support services, including studies, file preparation, and case evaluation, Allied Outsourcing helps felony professionals efficiently handle caseloads and ensure thorough and accurate representation of prisons.
Jordan Winczuk’s case exemplifies the gravity of litigation. With the know-how provided by Allied Outsourcing, criminal teams can live up to the prison nuances, precedential interpretations, and legislative adjustments that are essential to formulating strong legal arguments.
As demonstrated in the blog, their meticulous research and comprehensive support contribute to successful legal outcomes, helping legal professionals uphold justice and protect the rights of individuals involved in criminal cases.
To know more, reach out to:

Leave a Comment