With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". considering whether a “specific element” is present in the statute underlying the prior conviction); United States v. Weis, 487 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir.2007) (explaining that contrary to the § 2252(b)(1) enhancement, other sentencing enhancement provisions, such as 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B), require a prior offense to include a specific element in order to qualify as a predicate offense, which limits the court to reviewing the record of conviction only to determine the elements of the convicted offense). Rather, in applying the § 2252(b)(1) enhancement, we consider whether the conduct criminalized by the statute “relat[es] to” sexual abuse of a minor even though it may not specifically include acts of sexual abuse or require the victim to be a minor. See Weis, 487 F.3d at 1151-52 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks and citations

A: holding that attempted sexual abuse is a specific intent crime
B: holding that the new york misdemeanor offense of sexual abuse of a minor constitutes an aggravated felony under ina  101a43asexual abuse of a minor
C: holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse  and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse
D: recognizing the two distinct generic definitions of sexual abuse of a minor and holding that a statute contains the element of abuse under the medinavilla definition if it applies to sexual conduct with children younger than fourteen years
C.