that the imposition of the 15-year minimum sentence was error because (1) his prior convictions were not for “sexual abuse” as defined by federal law, and (2) the convictions are too remote in time to be considered for sentencing purposes. Both of these are legal contentions subject to de novo review. See United States v. Hecht, 470 F.3d 177, 179 (4th Cir.2006). A. Mills first contends that the district court erred in considering his prior convictions as predicate convictions for purposes of applying § 2252A(b)(l). Relying on Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), Mills maintains that the district court was precluded from considering anything other than the statutory elements of the state offenses. See Shepard, 544 U.S. at 26,125 S.Ct. 1254 (<HOLDING>); see also Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S.
holding that courts applying taylor may only look to the terms of the charging document the terms of a plea agreement or transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant in which the factual ba  sis for the plea was confirmed by the defen dant or to some comparable judicial record of this information holding that court could look only to the statutory definition of a crime the charging document written plea agreement transcript of plea colloquy and any explicit factual finding by the trial judge to which the defendant assented in determining if prior conviction qualified as a generic burglary for purposes of enhanced sentencing under armed career criminal act holding that in determining whether the defendant has a prior conviction for burglary under the armed career criminal act the federal court may look only to the terms of the charging document the terms of a plea agreement or transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant in which the factual basis for the plea was confirmed by the defendant or to some comparable judicial record of this information holding federal court is not bound by terms of plea agreement between defendant and state authorities holding that a courts inquiry as to disputed facts in connection with a prior conviction is limited to the terms of the charging document a plea agreement a transcript of the plea colloquy or a comparable judicial record