# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 38 90

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Fran k T. Sch ars ch el l

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 19 , 20 16
Fi le d: Nov em

be r 28 , 20 16 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , MURPHY an d S MITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Fran k Sch ars ch el l pl ead ed gu il ty pu rs ua nt to a pl ea ag reem en t t o po ss es si on
wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e fiv e gr am s or m or e of m et ha m ph et am in e (act ua l), in vi ol at io nof 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ) an d (b )(1 )(B)

. The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at Sch ars ch el l 1

w a s a c a reer of

fen de r pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. §§ 4B 1.1 an d 4B 1.2 (No v. 20 15 ) an d 2

se nt en ced Sch ars ch el l to 18 8 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. On ap pe al

, Sch ars ch el l arg ue s

th at th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s in va li da ti on of th e res id ua l cl au se of t h e Arm ed Care er
Cri m in al Act (ACCA ) e li m in at ed hi s st at e co nv ic ti on fo r co ns pi racy to co m m it

ag gr av at ed ro bb ery as a cri m e-o f-v io le nc e pr ed ic at e of fen se

. Se e Jo hn so n v. Uni te d

St at es , 13 5 S. Ct

. 25 51 (2 01 5)

. Upo n rev ie w, we co nc lu de th at co ns pi racy to co m m it

ag gr av at ed ro bb er y i s s t i ll in cl ud ed wit hi n th e Gui de li ne s’ de fin it io n of “ cri m e of

vi ol en ce” a nd th eref

or e aff irm.

I. Bac kg ro un d

Sch ars ch e l l p l e a d ed gu il ty pu rs ua nt to a pl ea ag reem en t to po ss es si on wit h

in te nt to di st rib ut e fiv e gr am s or m or e of m et ha m ph et am in e (act ua l), in vi ol at io n of

21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ) a nd (b )(1 )(B)

. Pri or to se nt en ci ng , th e pr ob at io n of fic e

pr ep ared a pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (PSR ). The PSR de si gn at ed Sch ars ch el l

as a care er of

fen de r pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1 ba se d on two of hi s pr io r

co nv ic ti on s: (1 ) a 20 06 co nv ic ti on fo r ro bb ery in W y an do tt e Co un ty, Kan sa s Dis tri ct

Co ur t, an d (2 ) a 2 01 1 c on vi ct io n fo r co ns pi racy to c om m it ag gr av at ed rob be ry als o

in W y an do tt e Co un ty, Kan sa s Dis tri ct Co ur t. Th e P SR de sc rib ed th es e of fen se s as

“ two pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s of ei th er a cri m e of vi ol en ce or a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e

of fen se .” Bas ed on a to ta l o ffen se le ve l of 31 an d a cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y of VI

un de r § 4B 1.1 (b ) fo r care er-o ffen de r st at us , th e PSR cal cu la te d a Gui de li ne s ran ge

of 18 8 t o 2 35 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t.

The Hon or ab le Gary A. Fen ne r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

Sch ars ch el l was se nt en ced on Nov em be r 17

, 20 15

. All ci ta ti o n s t o th e 2

Gui de li ne s are to th e Nov em be r 1, 20 15 ve rs io n, w h i c h was in effe ct at th e ti m e of
Sch ars ch el l’s s en te nc in g.

-2

-Sch ars ch el l ob jecte d to th e use of th e 20 11 co ns pi racy co nv ic ti on as a pr ed ic at e
cri m e of vi ol en ce. Sch ars ch el l arg ue d th a t t he Su pr em e Co ur t’s Jo hn so n de ci si on , whi ch in va li da te d th e AC C A ’s r e si du al cl au se , se e 13 5 S. Ct

. at 25 57

, al so

in va li da te d th e res id ua l cl au se co nt ai ne d in th e de fin it io n of “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” in

U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2

. Sch ars ch el l reas on ed th at “ [n ]ei t h e r c on sp ira cy , no r ag gr av at ed

ro bb ery, is an en um erat ed cri m e o f vi ol en ce un de r th e gu id el in es .” He ad di ti on al ly

as se rte d th at hi s Kan sa s co nv ic ti on fo r “ [c]on sp ira cy to co m m it ag gr av at ed ro bb ery
do es no t re qu ire th e ‘use , att em pt ed us e, or th reat en ed us e o f ph y si cal fo rce a ga in st

th e p ers on of a no th er.’”

In res po ns e, th e go ve rn m en t arg ue d th at Sch ars ch el l’s case w as dis tin gui sha bl e
be cau se “ App li cat io n Not e 1 to U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2

. . . st at es th at fo r ‘pur po se s of th e

gu id el in e—“ Cri m e of Vio le nc e” an d “ co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e” in cl ud es th e of fen se s of

ai di ng an d ab et

tin g, co ns pi rin g, an d at te m pt in g to co m

m it su ch of

fen se s.’” Acco rd in g

to th e go ve rn m en t, Sc ha rs ch el l was “ a car eer o ffen de r ba se d o n a co nv ic ti on fo r an

of fen se sp eci fic al ly li st ed in th e co m m en ta ry to U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2

, su ch as co ns pi racy

to co m m it a cri m e o f vi ol en ce.”

A t se nt en ci ng , th e co ur t ad op te d th e go ve rn m en t’s po si ti on an d ov err u l e d

Sch ars ch el l’s o bjec ti on to th e u se of t he Kans as co ns pi racy con vi ct io n, s ta ti ng :

I b e li ev e th at [th e go ve rn m en t’s] an al y si s of th e ap pl ic at io n un de r th e
pr es en te nc e rep or t as be in g co ns is te nt wit h th e gu id el in e reg ul at io ns is

co rrec t, an d th at th e cas e la w th at sp eak s to th e la ck of sp eci fic it y of th e

res id ua l cl au se fo r de te rm in at io n of care er of fen de r is no t th e ap pl ic ab le

or de te rm in in g co ns id erat io n, an d th a t t he gu id el in es do req ui re th e de te rm in at io n of Mr. Sch ars ch el l be in g de si gn at ed as a care er of fen de r; th eref or e, I’m go in g t o o ve rru le y ou r ob jecti on

.

The di st ric t co ur t cal cu la te d a Gui de li ne s ra n g e of 18 8 to 23 5 m on th s’

im pr is on m en t ba se d on a to ta l of fen se le ve l of 31 an d cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y of VI.

-3

-Afte r he ari ng arg u men t s f r o m co un se l an d co ns id eri ng th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)

fact or s, t he co ur t s en te nc ed Sch ars ch el l t o 1 88 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t.

II. Dis cu ss io n

On ap pe al

, Sch ars ch el l arg ue s th at th e di st r i c t c o u rt erre d in cal cu la ti ng hi s

ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ran ge be cau se hi s Kan sa s co nv ic ti on fo r co ns pi racy to co m m it

ag gr av at ed ro bb ery is no t a cri m e of vi ol en ce u n d e r § 4B 1.2

. Fi rs t, Sch ars ch el l

co nt en ds th at th e res id ua l cl au se of § 4B 1. 2 i s un co ns ti tu ti on al ly va gu e an d,

th eref or e, no lo ng er va li d. Se e Jo hn so n , 13 5 S. Ct

. at 25 57

. Seco nd

, he as se rts th at hi s

K a ns as co nv ic ti on fo r co ns pi ra cy to co m

m it ag gr av at ed ro bb ery is no t a “ fo rce
cl au se ” of

fen se u n d e r § 4B 1.2

. Acco rd in g to Sch ars ch el l, co ns pi racy “ do es no t

req ui re di rect pa rti ci pa ti on on t he cri m e”; th eref or e, on e m ay “ be co nv ic te d of

co ns pi racy t o co m

m it a ro bb ery wit ho ut ev e r e n g ag in g in th e us e or th reat en ed us e

of for ce.”

The go ve rn m en t co nc ed es th at “ th e res id ua l cl au se of § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2) , l ik e th e
‘resi du al cla us e’ of th e ACCA, is vo id fo r va gu en es s.” Fo r pu rp os es of t hi s ap pe al

,

we wil l as su m e wit ho ut de ci d i n g th at § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2) ’s res id ua l cl au se is

un co ns ti tu ti on al ly vag ue

. Cf . Uni te d S ta te s v. J

oh ns on , 64 1 F. App ’x 6 54 , 65 8 (8 th

Ci r. 20 16 ) (u np ub li sh ed pe r cu ria m ) (“ W e ag ree th at th e go ve rn m en t’s co nc es si on is

no t co nc lu si ve , bu t . . . we wil l ac cep t t ha t co nc es si on for th e sa ke of a rg um en t an d

as su m e wit ho ut de ci di ng th at , u nd er Jo hn so n , t he di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of th e

G uid el ine s ca

reer-o ffen de r res id ua l cl au se was pl ai n erro r.”). The refo re, “ we ne ed not

reac h th e res id ua l clau se to res ol ve th is cas e.” Uni te d St at es v. Rod ri gu ez , 66 4 F.3d

10 32

, 10 38 (6 th Ci r. 20 11 ). In st ead

, we ne e d o nl y ad dr es s whe th er Sch ars ch el l’s

co nv ic ti on fo r co ns pi racy to co m m it ag gr av at ed ro bb ery fal ls wit hi n th e fo rce cl au se

of § 4 B1 .2 an d t he refo re q ua li fie s as a cri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er § 4B 1.1

.

Sect io n 4 B1 .1(a ) pr ov id es th at

-4

-[a] de fen da nt is a c a reer of fen de r if (1 ) th e de fen da nt was at le as t ei gh te en y ears ol d at th e ti m e t he de fen da nt co m m it te d th e in st an t of fen se of c o n v i ct io n; (2 ) th e in st an t of fe ns e of co nv ic ti on is a fe lo ny th at is ei th er a cr ime of vi ol en ce or a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e of fen se ; an d (3 ) th e de fen da nt ha s at le a s t t w o p r i or fel on y co nv ic ti on s of ei th er a

cr ime o f vi ol en ce or a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e o ffen se

.

(Em ph as es ad de d. ) In tu rn , at th e ti m e of Sch ars ch el l’s se nt en ci ng , § 4B 1.2 (a) de fin ed

“ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” a s

an y of fen se un de r fed eral or st at e la w, pu ni sh ab le by im pr is on m en t fo r
a te rm ex ceed in g o ne y ear, t ha t—

(1 ) ha s as an el em en t th e us e, at te m pt ed us e, or th reat en ed

us e of ph y si cal fo rce ag ai ns t th e pe rs on of an ot he r [(“ fo rce cl au se ”)], or

(2 ) is bu rg la ry of

a dwe ll in g, ar so n, o r ex to rti on , in vo lv es

us e of ex pl os iv es , or ot he rwis e in vo lv es co nd uc t th at

pr es en ts a s e rio us po te nt ia l ris k of ph y si cal in jury to

an ot he r [(“ res id ua l cl au se ”)].

At th e ti m e of Sch ars ch el l’s 20 11 co nv ic ti on , Kan sa s la w de fin ed “ ag gr av at ed

ro bb ery” as “ a r o b b e ry

. . . co m m it te d by a pe rs on who is arm ed wit h a da ng ero us

weap on or who in fli ct s bo di ly ha rm up on an y pe rs on in th e co ur se of su ch ro bb ery. ”

St at e v. Bro wn , 33 1 P.3 d 78 1, 79 3 (Kan

. 20 14 ) (el li ps es in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Kan

. St at

. Ann

. § 21 -3 42 7)

. Add it io na ll y , “ ro bb ery” was de fin ed as “ th e ta ki ng of pr op ert y
fro m t h e p e r s on or pr es en ce of an ot he r by fo rce or by th reat of bo di ly ha rm to an y

pe rs on .” Id

. (q uo ti ng Kan

. St at

. Ann

. § 21 -3 42 6)

. Fi na ll y , “ co ns pi racy” was de fin ed

as

an ag reem en t wit h an ot he r pe rs o n t o c om m it a cri m e or to as si st in

co m m it ti ng a cri m e. No pe rs on m ay be co nv ic te d of a co ns pi racy un le ss

-5

-an ov ert act in fu rth eran ce of su ch co ns pi racy is al le ge d a nd pro ve d t o

ha ve be en co m

m it te d b y su ch pe rs on or b y

a co -co ns pi rat or

.

St at e v. Ta

pi a , 28 7 P.3 d 87 9, 88 3 (Kan

. 20 12 ) (em ph as is om it te d) (q uo ti ng Kan

. St at

. Ann . § 2 1- 33 02 (a))

.

Sch ars ch el l ha s no t ch al le ng ed t h a t “ ag gr av at ed ro bb ery, ” as Kan sa s la w
de fin es it , i s a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce.” S e e U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2 cm t. n.1 (d efi ni ng “ cri m e

of vi ol en ce” to in cl u d e “ ro bb ery”); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn , 55 0 F.3 d 72 4,

72 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ In th is cas e, ho wev er, Bro wn’s co nv ic ti on fo r ai di ng a fel on in

th e co m m is si on of an ag gr av at ed ro bb ery ha s as an el em en t ‘the us e, at te m pt ed us e,

or th reat en ed us e of ph y si cal fo rce ag ai ns t th e pe rs on of an ot he r.’” (q uo ti ng U.S.S.G.
§ 4B 1.2 (a)( 1) ) (fi rs t ci ti ng Kan

. St at

. Ann

. § 2 1

- 3 4 26 ; an d th en ci ti ng U.S.S.G.
§ 4B 1.2 cm t. n.1 )). Thu s, th e qu es ti on is whe th er co ns pi ra cy to co m

m it su ch a cri m e

fal ls wit hi n th e pu rv ie w of § 4B 1.2 (a)( 1) ’s fo rce cl au se a n d t he refo re co ns ti tu te s a

“ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” u nd er § 4B 1.1

.

Had th is cas e ari se n u n de r 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e), ou r an al y si s wou ld be m uc h

m or e co m pl ic at ed

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Ros s , 61 3 F .3d 80 5, 8 08 –0 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )
(“ [I]f th is cas e aro se un de r § 92 4( e), we li ke ly wou ld be req ui red to ad dr es s whe th er
vi ol at io n of a st at ut e th at en co m pa ss es m erel y pr ep arat or y act iv it y co ns ti tu te s a
vi ol en t fe lo ny.”). But we can res ol ve th is cas e “ in a m or e st rai gh tfo rward m an ne r.”

Id

. at 80 9. Thi s is be cau se “ th e gu id el in es th em se lv es sa y ex p l i ci tl y th at ‘the

de fin it io ns of “ vi ol en t fel on y ” an d “ se rio us dr ug of fen se ” in 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(2 )

are no t id en ti ca l to th e de fin it io ns of “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” and “ co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e

of fen se ” us ed in § 4B 1.1 .’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.4 cm t. n.1 ). Fo r th at reas on ,

“ se pa rat e a n a lysis is ne ces sa ry to en su re th at th ere is no reas on fo r a di st in ct io n”

be twee n § 4B 1.2 an d § 92 4( e). Id

.

-6

-Rel ev an t to th e pr es en t cas e, “ [t]he se nt en ci ng gu id e li ne s in cl ud e bi nd in g

co mment ar

y th at is no t ap pl ic ab le to § 92 4( e).” Id

. (em ph as is ad de d) (ci ti ng Uni te d

St at es v. Ca rp en te r , 11 F.3 d 78 8, 79 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 )). App li cat io n Not e 1 to § 4B 1.2

ex pr es sl y pr ov id es th at “ [f]or pu rp os es of th is gu id e l i n e

— ‘Crim e of vi ol en ce’

. . . in cl ud e[s ] th e of

fen se s of ai di ng an d ab et ti ng , co ns pi ri ng , an d at te m

pt in g to

co m m it su ch of

fen se s.” (Em

ph as is ad de d.) “ [W] e e x p e c t th at th e Sen te nc in g

Co m m is si on m ean t to ad op t a ‘gen eri c, co nt em po rary m ean in g’ of [‘con sp ira cy ’] in

i t s c o mm en ta ry .” Ros s , 61 3 F.3 d at 80 9 (q uo ti ng Ta yl or v. Uni te d St at es , 49 5 U

. S

. 57 5, 59 8 (19 90 )). W e al so ex pe ct “ [t]he co nt em po rary m ean in g of

” “ co ns pi racy” to

in cl ud e Kan sa s’s de fin it io n of “ co ns pi racy,” se e id

., whi ch cl os el y al ig ns wi t h t h at

of th e Mo de l Pen al Co de

, se e Mo de l Pen al Co de § 5.0 3. “ Thu s, t h e gu id el in e

co m m en ta ry co mpe ls th e co nc lu si on th at [co ns pi racy] to co m m it a cri m e of vi ol en ce

in [Kan sa s] qu al ifi es as a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r USSG § 4B 1.2 .” Ros s , 61 3 F.3 d at

80 9 (em ph as is a d d e d ) ( ci ti ng Ca rp en te r , 11 F.3 d at 79 1) ; se e al so Rod ri gu ez , 66 4

F.3 d at 1 0 3 8 ( “Ro dr ig ue z’s co nv ic ti on co un ts as a ‘crim e of vi ol en ce’ be cau se

ag gr av at ed as sa ul t is on e of th e en um erat ed cri m es of vi ol en ce li st ed in App li cat io n

Not e 1 to th e care e r o f f e n de r gu id el in e an d th e of fen se req ui res kn owi ng an d

in te nt io na l co nd uc t.”)

. 3

Sch ars ch el l ci te s se ve ral cas es in su pp or t of hi s arg um en t th at co ns pi raci es to 3

co m m it vi ol en t cri m es do no t q u a l i f y un de r th e fo rce cl au se of § 4B 1.2

. Se e, e.g

. , Uni te d St at es v. Gon za le z– Rui z , 79 4 F.3 d 8 3 2

, 8 33 (7 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (g ran ti ng
go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n to di sm is s it s cro ss -ap pe al in whi ch it arg ue d “ th at co ns pi racy
to co m m it arm ed ro bb ery is a vi ol en t fel on y un de r th e ‘resi du al cl au se ’ of th e ACCA”
aft e r J o h ns on “ he ld th at th e res id ua l cl au se is un co ns ti tu ti on al ly va gu e”); Uni te d
St at es v. Gor e , 63 6 F.3 d 72 8, 73 0 (5 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (ag reei ng “ th at un de r Tex as la w,

a co nv ic ti on fo r co ns pi racy to co m m it ag gr av at ed ro bb ery do e s no t ha ve ‘as an el em en t th e us e, at te m

pt ed us e, or th reat en ed us e of ph y si cal fo rce ag ai ns t th e pe rs on of an ot he r’” as pr ov id ed in § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (i) ); Uni te d St at es v. W hi te

, 57 1 F.3 d 36 5,
36 9 (4 th Ci r. 20 09 ), ab ro ga te d on ot he r gr ou nd s by Jo hn so n , 13 5 S. Ct

. at 25 60 (“ App lying a cat eg or ic al an al y si s to th e Co ns pi racy Offen se , we fir st ob se rv e th at it
do es no t ha ve ‘as an el em en t th e us e, at te m pt ed us e, or th rea t e n e d us e of ph y si cal

-7

-III. Co nc lu si on

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

fo rce ag ai ns t th e pe rs on of an ot he r.’” (q uo ti ng 18 U.S.C

. § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (i) )). Bu t each
of th es e cas es de a l t w i t h a de fen da nt who ha d be en se nt en ced un de r § 92 4( e), no t
U.S.S.G. §§ 4B 1.1 an d 4B 1.2

. As di sc us se d su pr a , th e cru ci a l d i ffer en ce be twee n § 9 24 (e) and § 4B1 .2 is th at § 4B1 .2 con ta in s “ bi nd in g com m en ta ry ” th at “ cri m e o f
vi ol en ce” i nc lu de s t he off en se of c on sp ira cy

. Se e Ros s , 61 3 F .3d at 8 09

.

W e ack no wled ge th at we de ci de d Ros s pr io r to Jo hn so n

. Bu t Sch ars ch el l “ do es

no t m en ti on [ Ros s ] in hi s br ie fin g on ap pe al an d pr ov id es us no ba si s to de pa rt fro m th at ho l d i n g

. ” Uni te d St at es v. Mor ri s , 64 1 F. App ’x 45 7, 46 1 (6 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (u np ub li sh ed ), cer t. de ni ed

, No. 15 -9 18 3, 20 16 W L 23 48 26 4 (U.S. Oct. 3, 20 16 ) (d ecl in in g t o o ve rru le Rod ri gu ez ).

-8

-