Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03376/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03376-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Haney
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3376

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Christopher Haney, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: February 15, 2006

Filed: April 5, 2006 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Christopher Haney reportedly flourished a weapon, police arrested him

and found a 9mm handgun in his possession. The Government charged Haney with

being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Haney

pleaded guilty and the district court*

 sentenced him to the minimum 180 months in

prison under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (any person who violates § 922(g) and has at least

three earlier violent felony convictions shall be imprisoned for not less than fifteen

years). On appeal, Haney contends he does not qualify for sentencing under § 924(e)

Appellate Case: 05-3376 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2006 Entry ID: 2029485
-2-

because his Missouri conviction for failure to return to confinement in violation of

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 575.220 should not qualify as a violent felony. 

Section 924(e)(2)(b) defines a violent felony as any crime punishable by more

than a year in prison that either “(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or

threatened use of physical force against the person of another, or (ii) . . . otherwise

involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”

A “violent felony within the meaning of § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) includes any crime whose

elements involve conduct that necessarily presents a serious potential risk of physical

injury to another.” United States v. McCall, No. 04-1143, 2006 WL 625687, at *3 (8th

Cir. Mar. 15, 2006) (en banc). We generally look only to the fact of conviction and

the earlier offense’s statutory definition. Id. at *2.

Missouri defines the crime of failing to return to confinement as occurring when

(1) a defendant is serving a sentence, (2) the sentence temporarily permits the

defendant to go at large without a guard, and (3) the defendant purposefully fails to

return to confinement when required. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 575.220.1. We have already

held that all escapes, including walkaway escapes, are crimes of violence. United

States v. Abernathy, 277 F.3d 1048, 1051 (8th Cir. 2002). This is so because “[e]ven

the most peaceful escape cannot eliminate the potential for violent conflict when the

authorities attempt to recapture the escapee.” United States v. Nation, 243 F.3d 467,

472 (8th Cir. 2001). The offense carries the inherent potential for harm to someone.

See McCall, 2006 WL 625687, at *3. We recently held there is no material distinction

between a walkaway escape and a failure to return to confinement as defined in Mo.

Rev. Stat. 575.220.1. United States v. Adams, No. 05-2180, 2006 WL 721793, at *2

(8th Cir. Mar. 23, 2006). We are bound by our earlier decisions, and lack authority

as a panel to overrule them. United States v. Prior, 107 F.3d 654, 660 (8th Cir. 1997).

Appellate Case: 05-3376 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2006 Entry ID: 2029485
-3-

Because the district court properly concluded Haney’s conviction for failure to

return to confinement qualified as an earlier violent felony under § 924(e), we affirm

Haney’s sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3376 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/05/2006 Entry ID: 2029485