FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 2, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 92 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 7- cr-0 00 71 -DHB-WLB-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us SHAW NTRAIL J. LEE, a.k .a. Bil ly D ark si de , a.k .a. Ja th enLee, a.k .a. Je rm ai ne W il de r, a.k .a. Sh awnLee, a.k .a. Rah sh au n F ro st , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 2, 2 01 1) Befo re WILSON andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andBUCKLEW , * Dis tri ctJu dg e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ * Honora ble Susan C. Buc klew, United States District Judge f or the Middle District of F lorida, sitti ngby designation.BUCKLEW , Dis tri ctJu dg e:

App el la ntSh awn tra il J. Lee ap pe al s h is sen te nc e o f 12 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, af

te r a jury foundhi m

gu il ty of on e co un t o f be in g afel onin po ss es si on of afir earm , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g ). The d is tri ctco urt se nt en cedLee as a care er o ffen de r un de r U.S. Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es Sect io n 2K2 .1(a )(2 ), aft er fi nd in g t ha t h e h adtwo pri orfel on y co nv ic ti on s fo r cri m es of vi ol en ce. At i ss ue is whethe r th e d is tri ctco urt erredin rul in g t ha t Lee ’s pri orNew Je rs ey fel on y co nv ic ti on s fo r el ud in g p ol ic e in th e se co ndde gr ee an d fo r co ns pi racy to c omm itarm edrob be ry were cr im es of v io le nc e, as de fin edin U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .2(a ), fo r pu rp os es of t he care er o ffen de r en ha nc em en t. I. Ba ck gr ou nd Lee was in di ct edon on e co un t o f po ss es si on of afir earm an d a m m un it io n by a felo n, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g)

. A jury fou ndLee g ui lt y , andhe was in it ia ll y sen te nc edto 18 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, af

te r th e d is tri ctco urt de te rm in edth athe was a n arm edcare er cri m in al wit h t hr ee p rio r vi ol en t fe lo ny co nv ic ti on s u nd er New J ers ey law: “ walk away” escape , elu di ng po li ce i n t he
se co ndde gr ee, an d c on sp ira cy to co m m itarm edrob be ry . Lee ap pe al edth atco nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e. Thi s C ou rt a ffi rm edth e co nv ic ti on , bu t v acat edan d re m an de d fo r res en te nc in g, h ol di ng th aton e o f Lee’s 2th ree p rio r fel on y co nv ic ti on s– th e “ walk away” escape –wa s n ota vi ol en t fe lo ny un de r 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e)( 2) (B)( ii ) of th e Arm edCare er Cr im in al Act. Uni te d St at es v. Lee , 58 6 F .3d85 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . The Co urt d ecl in edto ad dr es s t he el ud in g a ndco ns pi racy pred ic at e co nv ic ti on s i n t ha t o pi ni on . Id
. at 8 74 n.1 1. On re m an d, t he pro ba ti on off ic er p rep aredanam en de d p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt, i n wh ic h s he cat eg or iz edLee’s el ud in g a ndco ns pi racy co nv ic ti on s as cri m es of v io le nc e. Becaus e Lee h adtwo pre di cat e co nv ic ti on s fo r cri m es of v io le nc e, th e p ro ba ti on off ic er rec omm en de d t ha t h e b e se nt en cedas a care er o ffen de r pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 (a)( 2)
. At t he re-s en te nc in g h eari ng , Lee ob jecte d t ha t h is off

en se of e lu di ng po li ce in th e se co ndde gr ee was no t a c rime of v io le nc e. The d is tri ctco urt al so pe rm it te d Lee t o a do ptan d i nc or

po rat e an ob

jecti on th athe lo dg edat the ori gi na l s en te nc in g he ari ng th atth e g ov ern m en t h adno t es tabl is he d t ha t h is pri orco nv ic ti on for
co ns pi racy inv ol ve d t he un de rlyin g o ffen se of a rm edrob be ry , andth at , ne ve rth el es s, t he co nv ic ti on di d n otco ns ti tu te a cri m e o f vi ol en ce. The di stric t co urt o ve rru le d t he se ob jecti on s an d fo un d tha t t he New Jer se y cri m e o f el ud in g i n t he sec on d d eg ree was cat eg or ic al ly a crim e o f vi ol en ce be cau se th e cri m e is de fin edas afli gh t o r at te m ptto elu de po li ce t ha t “ crea te s a ris k o f de ath o r in

jury to an y

pe rs on .” N.J. St at . Ann . § 2 C: 29 -2 b. Th e d is tri ct

3co urt al so rei nc or po rat edit s fi nd in g a t the ori gi na l s en te nc in g h eari ng th at su ffi ci en t ju di ci al reco rd s fr om New Jer se y

est ab li sh edth atLee’s pr io r co nv ic ti on fo r co ns pi racy inv ol ve d t he un de rlyin g o ffen se of a rm edrob be ry , andth atsu ch
co nv ic ti on cat eg or ic al ly con st itut eda cri m e o f vi ol en ce. Lee was sen te nc edto th e st atut ory m ax im um of 1 20 m on th s, p ur su an t t o 1 8 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 9 24 (a)( 2) . This ap pe al fol lo wed
. II . Dis cus si on Lee ch al le ng es hi s 1 20 m on th sen te nc e o n t he gro un ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erre d i n fi nd in g t ha t h is pri orNew Jer se y co nv ic ti on s fo r el ud in g p ol ic e in th e se co ndde gr ee an d fo r co ns pi racy to c omm itarm edrob be ry were cr im es of vi ol en ce u nd er U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .2(a ). Thi s C ou rt r ev ie ws de no vo whet he r a de fen da nt 's p rio r co nv ic ti on qu al ifi es as acri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er t he U.S. Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . Uni te d Sta te s v. Ha rr is , 58 6 F .3d12 83 , 12 84 (11 th Cir
. 20 09 ). Und er U.S. Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es Sect io n 2 K2.1 (a)( 2) , fel on s re cei ve a ba se off en se lev el of 2 4 i f th ey

co m m it te d afir earm

off en se “ subs eque ntto su st ai ni ng at l eas t t wo fe lo ny con vi ct io ns of e it he r a cri m e o f vi ol en ce o r a co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e o ffen se .” The S en te nc in g Gu id el in es pro vi de th e fo ll owi ng de fin it io n: 4The term “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” m ean s an y off en se un de r fed eral or s ta te la w, pu ni sh ab le by im

pr is on m en t fo r a t erm

ex ceed in g o ne y ear, tha t– (1 ) ha s as anele m en t t he us e, atte m pt edus e, orth reat en ed us e o f ph y si cal for ce ag ai ns t the pe rs on of ano th er, o r (2 ) is bu rg la ry

of adwel li ng , ars on , or e xt orti on , in vo lv es us e o f ex pl os iv es , or o th erwi se in vo lv es co nduc t t ha t pr es en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ri skof p hysic al in jury to an ot he r. U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .2(a ). The p hr as e, “ orothe rwis e in vo lv es co nduc t t ha t p res en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ri skof p hysic al in jury to an ot he r,” i s re ferr edto as t he “ res idua l pr ov is io n,” or r es idua l cl au se . Har ris , 58 6 F .3dat 1 28 5. Th is ap pe al ad dr es se s whe th er Lee’s p rio r vi ol at io ns of Ne w Jer se y ’s elu di ng an d c on sp ira cy st atut es , N.J. St at . Ann . §§ 2C :2 9- 2b an d 2 C: 5- 2, fa ll un de r th e res idua l cl au se . W e fo ll ow a t hr ee-s te p i nqui ry forde te rm in in g wh ethe r a p rio r co nv ic ti on co ns ti tu te s a c rime of v io le nc e u nd er t he res idua l cl au se : Fi rs t, wh atis th e rel ev an t ca te go ry of c rime, det erm in edby loo ki ng to ho w th e cri m e is ord in ari ly comm it te d? Seco nd , do es th atcri m e p os e a “ se rio us po te nt ia l ri skof p hysic al in jury” tha t i s s im il ar i n d eg ree t o th e ri sk s p os edby the enum erat edcri m es ? Thi rd , is th atcri m e si m il ar in ki ndto th e en um erat edcri m es ? Uni te d Sta te s v. Ha rr is on , 55 8 F .3d12 80 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). In m ak in g t hi s de te rm in at io n, we u se th e “ cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch ,” whi ch “ lo ok s o nl y to th e fac t o f
co nv ic ti on an d t he st atut ory de fin it io n o f th e p rio r of fen se wit ho utex am in in g pa rti cu la r fac ts di sc lo se d b y th e rec or d o f co nv ic ti on .” Uni te d Sta te s v. Whi ts on ,

559 7 F .3d12 18 , 12 20 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (p er cu ria m) (ci ta ti on s, i nt ern al qu ot at io ns ,

an d a lt erat io ns om it te d)
. 1 A. El udi ng Pol ic e in the Se co nd Deg ree In Har ris , th is Co urt co ns id eredwhethe r th e se co ndde gr ee fe lo ny of wil lfu ll y fle ei ng or a tt em

pt in g t o e lu de a po li ce o ffi cer u nd er Fl or id a la w, a cri m e whi chrequi redth atth e d efen da ntdri ve at h ig h s pe edor “ de m on st rat e[] a want on di sr eg ardforth e sa fet y

of p ers on s o r pr op ert y ,” co ns ti tu te d acri m e o f vi ol en ce un de r th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . 58 6 F .3dat 1 28 4 (q uo ti ng Fla . Sta t. § 31 6.1 93 5( 3) (a)) . Usin g t he th ree- st ep in qu iry lis te d abo ve to an al yze t he cri m e as itis ord in ari ly comm it te d, t he Co urt d et erm in edth atth e Fl or id a o ffen se was a cri m e o f vi ol en ce b ecau se itwas c le ar fro m th e fac e o f th e st atut e th atitwas si m il ar i n k in d a ndde gr ee o f ri skto th e en um erat edcri m es . Id
. at 1 28 8. Th e Co urt re as on edth at“ [f]leei ng fro m th e p ol ic e athi gh sp eedor wi th ‘ a wan to n di sr eg ardforth e sa fet y

of p ers on s o r pr op ert y ’ do es in de ed‘ sh ow an in crea se d li ke li ho odth atth e o ffen de r is th e k in d o f pe rs on who m ig htde li be rat el y po in t t he gu n a ndpu ll th e tr ig ge r.’” Id
. (qu ot in g F la . Sta t. § 31 6.1 93 5( 3) (a) a nd Begay v.

Howeve r, a c ourt may

examine the underly

ing f acts of the conviction, if “a mbiguities in the 1 judgme nt make the c rime of violenc e dete rmination impossi ble from the f ace of the judgment itself.” Harris , 586 F.3d at 1286 n.1 (quoting United States v. Be ckle s , 565 F.3d 832, 842–43 (11th Cir. 2009)). 6Uni te d Sta te s , 55 3 U.S. 1 37 , 14 6, 1 28 S. Ct. 1 58 1, 1 58 7, 1 70 L. Ed. 2d49 0

(2 00 8) ). The Co urt d et erm in edth atth e actof f le ei ng th e p ol ic e was “un de ni ab ly pu rp os efu l,” a s wi ll fu ln es s i s an ex pl ic itele m en t o f th e st atut e. Har ris , 58 6 F .3d at12 88 . Furt he rm or e, th e Co urt ru le d t ha t t he off en se was v io le ntan d a gg res si ve be cau se , “ [i]n t he ‘ or di na ry cas e,’ road way s ar e p op ul at edby oth er t rav el ers who m th e o ffen de r an d t he off

ic er wi ll ha ve to av oi d h it ti ng in th e co ur se of ahi gh sp eed ch as e.” Id
. (quo ti ng Ja mes v. Uni te d Sta te s , 55 0 U.S. 1 92 , 20 8, 1 27 S. Ct. 1 58 6, 15 97 , 16 7 L. Ed. 2 d 5 32 (20 07 )). Thu s, fl eei ng th e p ol ic e athi gh sp eedis “ li ke ho ld in g aweap on ou t, re ady to fir e,” o r “ [l]ik e an ars on is t l ig ht in g afir e wit ho ut reg ardforha rm

th e fi re m ay

cau se .” Id
. at 1 28 8– 89
. Inreac hi ng th is co nc lu si on , th e Co urt d is ti ng ui sh edsec on d d eg ree e lu di ng fro m th irdde gr ee el ud in g, a c rime whic h t he Co urt fo un d n otto be a vi ol en t fel on y in Uni te d Sta te s v. Ha rr is on , 55 8 F .3d12 80 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Id
. at 1 28 7. In Har riso n , th e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t t he Flo rid a cri m e o f th irdde gr ee el ud in g, as or di na ril y co m m it te d, d idno t co ns ti tu te a vi ol en t fe lo ny becaus e itdi d n otrequi re ei th er h ig h s pe edor awant ondi sr eg ardforsaf ety , andth eref

or e d idno t en ta il th e sa m e h ig h l ev el of r is k a s t he enum erat edcri m es . 55 8 F .3dat 1 29 4. Har ris is in st ru ct iv e due to th e si m il ari ti es be twee n the Flo rid a an d New 7Je rs ey

cri m es of s eco ndde gr ee el ud in g. Here, th e p art ie s ag ree tha t Lee was 2
co nv ic te d u nd er Se ct io n 2 C: 29 -2 b o f th e New Je rs ey Sta tu te s, wh ic h re ad s: Any pers on , whi le op erat in g am ot orve hi cl e o n a ny str eetor h ig hway in th is Sta te . . . who kn owi ng ly flees or a tt em pt s t o e lu de an y

po li ce orlaw en fo rcem en t o ffi cer a fte r ha vi ng rece iv edan y si gn al fro m

su ch of fic er t o b rin g t he ve hi cl e . . . to aful l s to p c omm it s a c rime of th e th irdde gr ee; ex cep t tha t, a p ers on is gu il ty of a cri m e o f th e se co nd de gr ee i f th e fl ig htor a tt em ptto elu de crea te s a r is k o f de ath o r in jury to an y pe rs on . N.J. St at . Ann . § 2 C: 29 -2 b. We beg in by readi ng th e fac e o f th e st atut e “ it se lf t o di sc ern th e cri m e as itis ord in ari ly comm it te d.” Har ris , 58 6 F .3dat 1 28 8. Th is st atut e co nt ai ns ele m en ts th atare v ery si m il ar t o the Flo rid a se co ndde gr ee el ud in g st atut e: (1) a la w enf

or cem en t o ffi cer s ig na ls a m ot or is t t o s to p; (2) th e m ot or is t kn owi ng ly flees or a tt em pt s t o e lu de th e o ffi cer; an d (3 ) th e fl ig htor a tt em ptto el ud e “ crea te s a r is k o f de ath o r in jury to an y

pe rs on .” N.J. St at . Ann . § 2 C: 29 -2 b. W e n ex t “ rel y

on ou r own co m

m on -s en se an al y si s o f whe th er t hi s [c rime] po se s a s eri ou s p ot en ti al ris k o f ph y si cal in jury.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Al exa nder , 60 9 F.3 d 1 25 0, 1 25 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . Like th e Fl or id a el ud in g s ta tu te , itis cle ar fro m th e fac e o f th e New Je rs ey st atut e th atth is cri m e p res en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ri sk
The Court is also persua ded by case law fr om other circ uits in which analog ous state eluding 2 laws we re f

ound to be pre dicate of

fense s under the Armed Car eer Criminal Act (“A CCA”). See Harris , 586 F.3d at 1285, 1289 n.2 (listing ca ses and notingthat the def inition of a violent felony under the ACCA is “virtually identical” to the de finition of a crime of violence under the SentencingGuidelines). 8of

ph y si cal in

jury thatis si m il ar i n d eg ree t o t he ris ks po se d b y th e en um erat ed cri m es . This is be cau se , li ke th e Fl or id a st atut e’s requi rem en t t ha t t he fli gh t b e co m m it te d wi th “ a wan to n d is reg ardforth e sa fet y of p ers on s o r pr op ert y ,” th is st atut e co nt ai ns th e es se nt ia l el em en t t ha t t he fli gh t “ crea te s a r is k o f de ath o r in jury to an y

pe rs on .” Fla . Sta t. § 31 6.1 93 5( 3) (a); N.J. St at . Ann . § 2 C: 29 -2 b. Fu rth erm or e, th e New Je rs ey cri m e o f se co ndde gr ee el ud in g m us t b e co m m it te d “ kn owi ng ly” afte r th e m ot or is t re cei ve s a s ig na l fr om law en fo rcem en t,
an d t he refo re, i t i nv ol ve s a p ur po se fu l ac t. N.J. St at . Ann . § 2 C: 29 -2 b; se e Har ris , 58 6 F .3dat 1 28 8 (n ot in g t ha t, b ecau se wil lfu ln es s i s an ex pr es se d e le m en t o f th e Fl or id a st atut e, th is “ su gg es ts th atth e driv er h as see n the si ren an d l ig ht s o f th e po li ce ca r, reco gn iz edth atth e o ffi cer wan te d h im to st op , andde li be rat el y di so be y edth e o rd er i n adang ero us fas hi on ”). The New Jer se y off en se is als o ne ces sa ril y

vi ol en t an d a gg res si ve be cau se itrequi res th atth e m ot or is t fl ee l aw en fo rcem en t i n s uc h away th atth e fl ig ht“ crea te s a r is k o f de ath o r in jury to an y pe rs on .” N.J. St at . Ann . § 2 C: 29 -2 b; se e Har ris , 58 6 F .3dat 1 28 8 (r eas on in g t ha t

“ [t]he off en de r who elu de s a p ol ic e o ffi cer a t [h ig h] sp eed s . . . nec es sa ril y po se s a po werfu l ri skto th e arr es ti ng off ic er, p ed es tri an s, an d o th er driv ers an d p as se ng ers in th ei r owncars ”). W e rejectLee’s co nt en ti on th at , bec au se sec on d d eg ree e lu di ng un de r New 9Je rs ey

law cr im in al iz es fli gh t tha t cr eat es a ri skof i nju ry to “ an y pe rs on ,” in cl ud in g t he de fen da nthi m se lf, i t i s a s tri ctli ab il it y off en se th atcan no t qua li fy

as a cri m e o f vi ol en ce. Cf

. Uni te d Sta te s v. Ha rr is , 60 8 F .3d12 22 , 12 24 (11 th Cir
. 20 10 ) (ac kn owl ed gi ng “ th e h ol di ng of Begayv. Uni te d Sta tes , 55 3 U.S. 1 37 , 14 3, 12 8 S . Ct. 1 58 1, 1 58 5, 1 70 L. Ed. 2d49 0 (2 00 8) , th atst ric t l iabi li ty crim es are n ot ‘rou gh ly sim il ar’ to bu rg la ry , ars on , ext orti on , or an o ffen se in vo lv in g t he us e o f
ex pl os iv es an d t he refo re d o n otco m e wit hi n t he res idua l cl au se ”). W e are requi redto an al y ze h ow t he cri m e is ord in ari ly comm it te d. Har ris , 58 6 F .3dat 12 88 . “ Inth e ‘ord in ary cas e,’ road way s ar e p op ul at edby oth er t rav el ers who m th e of fen de r an d t he off

ic er wi ll ha ve to av oi d h it ti ng in th e co ur se of ahi gh sp eed ch as e.” Id
. (ci ta ti on om it te d) . There fo re, the m ot or is t wh o kno win gl y fle es fro m la w enf or cem en t i n s uc h away

th atth e fl ig htcrea te s a r is k o f de ath o r in jury to

“ an y pe rs on ” p os es a ri skno t o nl y to hi m se lf, b utto othe r dr iv ers , pas se ng ers , pe de stria ns , andlaw en fo rcem en t o ffi cers . Inan al y zi ng th e New Je rs ey cri m e o f se co ndde gr ee el ud in g a s i t i s or di na ril y co m m it te d, we re ach th e sa m e co nc lu si onth atwe reac he d i n Har ris : th atkn owi ng ly fleei ng law en fo rcem en t, wh enth atfli gh t cr eat es a ri skof d eat h o r in jury to an y

pe rs on , is cat eg or ic al ly a crim e o f vi ol en ce und er U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2 (a). As we st at edin Har ris , “ [f]leei ng at h ig h s pe edor wi th want on 10di sr eg ardforsaf ety am ou nt s t o h ol di ng a fi ng er o n t he tri gg er o f a d ead ly w eap on , wit ho utcare for

who m th e b ul le t m ay

strik e.” 5 86 F.3dat 1 28 9. B. Con sp ir ac y to Comm it Ar m ed Ro bber y The ne xtis su e is whet he r Lee’s fel on y co nv ic ti on forco ns pi racy to c omm it
arm edrob be ry , un de r New Je rs ey Sta tu te Sect io n 2 C: 5- 2, qua li fie s as a cri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er t he res idua l cl au se of U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2 (a). Aft er t he Co urt h eard
or al arg um en ts , th e g ov ern m en t co nc ed edth atLee’s co ns pi racy con vi ct io n d oe s no t qua li fy

cat eg or ic al ly as a cri m e o f vi ol en ce. With th e g ov ern m en t’s
co nc es si on in m in d, t he Co urt p ro ceed s t o a ddres s t he m eri ts of t hi s i ss ue . The Co urt fi rs t m

us t d et erm in e if

th e New Je rs ey

cri m e o f co ns pi racy to co m m itarm edrob be ry

is a no n- ov ertactco ns pi racy, or an ov ertactco ns pi racy. Thi s i s b ecau se a “ no n- ov ertactco ns pi racy is no t a se ct io n 4 B1 .1 ‘crim e o f vi ol en ce.’” W

hi ts on , 59 7 F .3dat 1 22 3 (e m ph as is ad de d)
. “ [C]rim in al co ns pi racy 3 is on ly a ‘ cri m e o f vi ol en ce’ if the co ns pi racy, in i ts el f, in vo lv es co nduc t t ha t i s pu rp os efu l, v io le nt , andag gr es si ve .” Id
. at12 22 . If th e co ns pi racy do es no t requi re an ov ertact , th enth ere i s n o s uc h “ pu rp os efu l, v io le nt , [or ] ag gr es si ve co nduc t” to m ak e ita cri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er Begay . Id
. The district cour

t conducted L ee’ s re- sentenc ing he aringon Fe bruar y 18, 2010–one we ek 3 befor e W hitson was de cided on F ebrua ry 24, 2010, and thus did not have the be nefit of this ca se when it consider ed whe ther the N ew Jersey conspirac y

was a crime of violence. 11The New Jer se y cri m in al co ns pi racy sta tu te pro vi de s t he fol lo win g: A per so n i s g ui lty

of c on sp ira cy

with a no th er p ers on or p ers on s t o co m m ita cri m e if

wit h t he pu rp os e o f pr om ot in g o r fac il it at in g i ts co m m is si on he : (1 ) Agr ees wit h s uc h o th er p ers on or p ers on s t ha t t he y or on e o r m or e o f th em

wil l en ga ge in co nduc t wh ic h co ns ti tu te s s uc h c rime . . . ; or (2 ) Agr ees to aidsu ch ot he r pe rs on or p ers on s i n t he pl an ni ng or c omm is si on of s uc h c rime or o f an att em pt orso li ci ta ti on to co m

m itsu chcri m e. N.J. St at . Ann . § 2 C: 5- 2a . Furt he rm or e, reg ard in g a n o ve rt a ct , th e st atut e pr ov id es : No p ers on m ay

be co nv ic te d o f co ns pi racy to c omm ita cri m e othe r th an a cr ime o

f the fi rs t o r s eco nd

de gr ee . . . unl es s an ov ertactin pu rs uanc e o f su ch co ns pi racy is p ro ve d t o h av e b een do ne by him or by a pers on with wh om

he co ns pi red
. Id
. atd (e m

ph as is ad de d) . In o th er wo rd s, i f th e o bjec t o f th e co ns pi racy is a c rime of th e fi rs t o r se co ndde gr ee, the st at e n eedno t p ro ve th atth e d efen da ntco m m it te d
anov ertactin furth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy. St at e v. S ch er ze r, 69 4 A.2 d 1 96 , 21 4 (N.J. Supe r. Ct . App . Div . 19 97 ) (h ol di ng th at“ [w]henth e St at e p ro se cu te s a de fen da ntforco ns pi racy to c omm ita fi rs t o r se co ndde gr ee cr im e, itne edno t pr ov e th at[th e] defe nd an t co m m it te d a n o ve rt a ctin pu rs ua nc e o f th e co ns pi racy”).

12InNew Jer se y , arm edrob be ry is a cri m e o f th e fi rs t d eg ree. N.J. Sta t. An n. 4 § 2 C: 15 -1 b (p ro vi di ng th at“ [r]ob be ry is a cri m e o f th e se co ndde gr ee, ex cep t t ha t itis a cri m e o f th e fi rs t d eg ree i f in th e co ur se of c omm it ti ng th e th eftth e act or. . . is arm edwit h . . . a de ad ly w eap on ”). The refo re, co ns pi racy to c omm itarm ed
ro bb ery do es no t re qu ire anov ertactun de r New Je rs ey law. An d, b ecau se itis a no n- ov ertactco ns pi racy, und er W hi ts on , itis als o no t

a cri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . Acco rd in gl y , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredwhen itrul edth at Lee’s New Je rs ey

co nv ic ti on forco ns pi racy to c omm itarm edrob be ry was cat eg or ic al ly a crim e o f vi ol en ce. II I. Con cl us io n Lee ap pe al s h is sen te nc e o f 12 0 m on th s o n t he gro un ds th atth e d is tri ct co urt erredin fin di ng th athi s p rio r New Je rs ey co nv ic ti on s fo r el ud in g p ol ic e in th e se co ndde gr ee an d fo r co ns pi racy to c omm itarm edrob be ry were cr im es of vi ol en ce u nd er U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .2(a ). W e co nc lu de th atth e New Je rs ey fel on y of el ud in g p ol ic e in th e se co ndde gr ee i s a c rime of v io le nc e, bu t t ha t t he New Jer se y
At oral a rgument, L ee a

bandoned his position that the g overnme nt had not established that 4 the conspira cy

involved the under lying of fense of ar

med robbe ry , a first de g ree offe nse. L ee in fac t conce ded that the objec t of the conspira cy was robbe ry

in at least the sec ond degree . Proof of an ove rt ac t is not required for conspirac y

to commit either first or sec ond degree robber y . Scherze r, 694 A.2d at 214. 13fel on y

of c on sp ira cy

to co m m itarm edrob be ry

is no t. Acco rd in gl y , bec au se Lee’s
co ns pi racy con vi ct io n i s n ota cri m e o f vi ol en ce, we VACATE hi s s en te nc e, an d REMAND to th e d is tri ctco urt fo r res en te nc in g c on si st en t wi th th is op in io n. VACATED an d REMANDED.

14