Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01463/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01463-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Tommie Whetzell
Appellant

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1463

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Tommie Whetzell, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 20, 2009

Filed: February 10, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Tommie Whetzell pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a

convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and to making a false statement to acquire a

firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). At sentencing, the district court1

 calculated

Appellant's base offense level to be twenty, finding that he had previously been

convicted of housebreaking in a military court martial proceeding, and that such a

crime qualifies as a "crime of violence" under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) (2007). After taking into account a three-level reduction for

Appellate Case: 09-1463 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2010 Entry ID: 3632905
-2-

acceptance of responsibility, U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) and (b), and a four-level

enhancement based on the number of firearms involved, U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B),

the district court sentenced Appellant to forty-one months' imprisonment on each

count, to be served concurrently. Appellant argues that the district court erred in

applying § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) because the court improperly referenced the underlying

facts in Appellant's conviction, as stated by the military appellate court, in violation

of the objective, categorical approach that the Supreme Court set out in Taylor v.

United States, 495 U.S. 575, 602 (1990). Upon de novo review, United States v.

LeGrand, 468 F.3d 1077, 1081 (8th Cir. 2006), we affirm the district court.

The guidelines provide for a base offense level of twenty upon a district court's

finding that the defendant previously committed a "crime of violence." U.S.S.G.

§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). Appellant's prior crime, the crime of housebreaking, occurs when

"[a]ny person subject to [the Uniform Code of Military Justice] . . . unlawfully enters

the building or structure of another with intent to commit a criminal offense therein

. . . ." 10 U.S.C. § 930. Housebreaking is a generic burglary crime because it includes

the elements of "unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or

structure, with intent to commit a crime." Taylor, 495 U.S. at 599. We have held that

generic burglary, as defined in Taylor, is a crime of violence within the meaning of

the guidelines. E.g., United States v. Stymiest, 581 F.3d 759, 769 (8th Cir. 2009);

LeGrand, 468 F.3d at 1082. Therefore, Appellant's conviction for housebreaking

constitutes a prior crime of violence.

Appellant's primary argument against this conclusion is that the district court

improperly referenced the military court's discussion of the underlying facts of his

conviction. Generally, a court is only to consider "the fact of conviction and the

statutory definition of the prior offense." Taylor, 495 U.S. at 602. But the district

court's reference in this case to the underlying facts of Appellant's housebreaking

conviction, as articulated in the military court's opinion, does not change the fact that

the elements of housebreaking constitute a generic burglary crime, a crime of violence

Appellate Case: 09-1463 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2010 Entry ID: 3632905
-3-

under our precedents. Further, and contrary to Appellant's argument, the Supreme

Court's opinion in Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008), did not alter our

decisions in regard to generic burglary and does not provide reason for reversal. See

Stymiest, 581 F.3d at 768–69.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1463 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/10/2010 Entry ID: 3632905