Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02098/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02098-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Keyes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES 

FILL D 

United States C<Nrt of Appeal, Tenth Cireuit 

COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT FEB 1 O 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

THOMAS KEYES, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant.) 

No. 92-2098 

(D. N.M. No . CR 91-116) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.** 

The defendant-appellant, Thomas Keyes, appeals from the 

district court's imposition of a 210-month sentence pursuant to 

the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Keyes contends that the 

district court erred in sentencing him under U.S.S.G. 

§ 4Bl.4(b) (3) (A), the provision governing sentences for 

convictions under the Armed Career Criminal Act, rather than 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 92-2098 Document: 010110170323 Date Filed: 02/10/1993 Page: 1 
sentencing him under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.l(a), the provision governing 

sentences for armed robbery. We hold that the district court 

properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines and that we therefore 

have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. 

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), a sentence imposed within the 

guideline range may not be appealed unless imposed in violation of 

the law or as a result of an incorrect application of the 

guidelines. United States v. Garcia, 919 F.2d 1478, 1479 (10th 

Cir. 1990). Because we have jurisdiction to determine our 

jurisdiction, a defendant prirna facie invokes our authority to 

review his appeal when he alleges that a sentence within the 

guidelines was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of 

the guidelines. Id. at 1480. Still, we must look beyond the 

mere allegations to consider whether the complaint is indeed 

reviewable under§ 3742(a). As a result, the task of determining 

jurisdiction is sometimes little different from deciding the 

merits of the appeal. Id. Such is the case here. 

Keyes was indicted on March 7, 1991, for violating 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g) (1) 1 and the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(e) (1) . 2 He pleaded guilty to the charges. The conduct 

underlying the charges consisted of attempted armed robbery of a 

Pep Boys store. 

1 Section 922(g) (1) prohibits the possession of a firearm by 

one who has previously been convicted of a crime punishable by a 

term of more than one year. 

2 Section 924(e) (1) provides that anyone who violates§ 922(g) 

and who has three previous convictions for violent felonies or 

serious drug offenses punishable by a term of more than one year 

shall be imprisoned for a minimum of fifteen years. 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 92-2098 Document: 010110170323 Date Filed: 02/10/1993 Page: 2 
Two guideline provisions cover Keyes' criminal conduct. 

Section 4Bl . 4 governs the sentencing of defendants convicted of 

violating the Armed Career Criminal Act, § 924(e). Keyes pleaded 

guilty to violating the ACCA, and does not contest that guilty 

plea on appeal. Under§ 4Bl.4(b), ACCA violators have a base 

offense level equal to the greater of 343 or the offense level 

applicable from Chapters Two and Three. The district court 

calculated the defendant's offense level under the Chapter Two 

armed robbery provision, § 2B3 . l(a), to be 21. 4 Because the 

Chapter Two offense level of 21 was clearly lower, the district 

court found Keyes' offense level to be 34 pursuant to§ 4Bl.4(b) .

5 

The court then subtracted two points for acceptance 

3 Section 4Bl.4 provides that an ACCA violator's base level is 

34 "if the defendant used or possessed the firearm . .. in 

connection with a crime of violence." Section 4Bl.2(1) defines a 

crime of violence as "any offense under federal or state law 

punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year that .. . has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use 

of physical force against the person of another. " Attempted armed 

robbery satisfies the definition of a crime of violence. 

4 Keyes does not contest the accuracy of the district court's 

calculation of his offense level under either Chapter Two or 

§ 4Bl.4 (b). 

5 Keyes also asserts that the district court abused its 

discretion because it departed from a base offense level of 21 to 

an offense level of 34. This contention misconceives the district 

court's action. In choosing 34 as the base offense level, the 

district court was not "departing" as that term is used in the 

Guidelines; rather, the court was merely complying with 

§ 4Bl . 4(b) 's command that it choose the higher of two applicable 

offense levels. That is, § 4Bl.4(b) controls the question of 

which base offense level applies, while departure cases address 

the question of how far from the applicable base level the 

district court may stray in sentencing the defendant. For a 

discussion of the requirements for a proper departure, see 

Williams v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 1112, 1120 (1992); United 

States v. White, 893 F.2d 276, 277 (10th Cir. 1990); United States 

v . Jackson, 921 F.2d 985, 989 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. 

Gardner, 905 F.2d 1432 , 1436 (10th Cir.) , cert. denied, 111 s . Ct. 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 92-2098 Document: 010110170323 Date Filed: 02/10/1993 Page: 3 
of responsibility pursuant to§ 3El.l(a), resulting in a total 

offense level of 32. Upon plotting the offense level of 32 and 

criminal history category of vr6 on the Sentencing Guidelines 

table, the court found that Keyes' guideline range for sentencing 

purposes was 210 to 262 months. The court then sentenced the 

defendant to the lowest point on that range--210 months. Because 

the district court properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines and 

did not impose the sentence in violation of the law, we have no 

jurisdiction to consider this appeal. 

Mandate shall issue forthwith . 

202 (1990). 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

6 Keyes does not contest the accuracy of the court's assessment 

of his criminal history category. 

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 92-2098 Document: 010110170323 Date Filed: 02/10/1993 Page: 4