Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e co urt has determined that this o pinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 10177

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee,

ve r s us JAM ES M

. D AV I S , D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t.

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas

N o. 7: 05- C R

- 4

B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d D eM O S S , C i rcui tJu dg es P E R C U R I A M: *

J a m e s D a v is p le a d e d g u ilty o f b e in g a fe lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f a fir e a r m in vi ol ati on of

18 U
. S

. C

. § 922(g) an d w as sentenced to t h e st atutor y m i n i m u m of f i f t ee n year s’i m pri so nm entunder t he A r m ed Care erC r i m i nalA c t( “A C C A ” ) , 18 United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 31, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 10177

2 U
. S. C. § 9 24 ( e )

. The s e nt e nc e w as ba s e d i n pa r t o n Davi s ’ s Ar i z o na c o nvi c t i o ns o f se co n d -d e g re e b u rg la ry in v iola tion o f A RIZ . R EV . S TAT
. A NN . § 13- 150 7, w h i ch th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e e m e d “v io le n t fe lo n ie s ” u n d e r§ 9 2 4 (e )(2 )(B )(ii). I d. D a v is a p p e a le d , a n d w e is s u e d tw o n o n -d is p o s itiv e o p in io n s . S ee Un i t ed S ta tes v. D a v is , 5 3 0 F .3 d 3 1 8 , 3 1 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (p e rcu r ia m ); Uni t e d S t at e s v. D a v is , 291 F
. A pp ’ x 563 (5t h C i r. 200 8) ( per curi am )

. A s r equ est ed, w e rec ei ved sup pl em en t albri efs. D avis con t en ds t h at hi s A ri zona convi ct i on s w ere not f or vi ol en tfel on i es u n der § 924(e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i) , becau se second

- deg ree bu rgl ary u n der A ri zona l aw does
no tf i tw i t hi n t he g e ne r i c , c o nt e m po r ar y m e ani ng o f bur gl ar y as de f i ne d i n T

ayl or v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 495 U
. S. 575 ( 19 90 )

. Bec aus e D av i s di d notra i s e t hi s i s s ue b e lo w , w e re v ie w fo rp la in e r r o r . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. D u pre , 117 F. 3d 810, 817 (5 th C ir
. 1 9 9 7 ). P la in e r r o rre v ie w h a s fo u rs te p s . P u cket tv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 2009 U .S

. L E X IS 2 3 3 0 , a t *1 1 -*1 2 (U .S

. M a r. 2 5 , 2 0 0 9 ). W e “m a y re v e rs e on ly if: ( 1) t he r e w as e r r o r( 2) t hatw as c l e arand ob vi o us and ( 3) t hata f fe c t e d a de fe nd a n t’ s su b stan ti a lri gh ts. ” I d. If t h ese el em en t s are present, w e ha ve t h e “ di sc r e tio n to co r r e c t t h e e r r o rif it s e r io u s ly a ffe c t[s ] th e fa ir n e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic rep u tati on of j u d i ci a lpr oce ed i n gs . ” I d. ( i nt e r nal quo t at i o n m ar ks a nd c i t at i o ns om i t t ed). I f

exi st i n g l aw i s u n set t l ed r egard i n g an al l eged err or, t h e al l eged err o ris n o t c le a ro ro b v io u s . Uni t e d St at e s v . Sal i nas , 48 0 F
. 3 d 75 0 , 75 6 , 75 9 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ).

“ [A] pe r s o n ha s b e e n c o nvi c t e d o f b ur gl ar y f

o rpur po s e s o f

a § 924 ( e ) e nh an cem en ti f

he i s c on vi ct ed of

an y cri m e, regardl ess of i t s exactdef

i n i tion or l abel, ha vi n g t h e basi c el em en t s of un l aw f u lor u n pri vi l eged entry i n t o, or rem a i n i n g in , a b u i l d i n g o r stru ctu re, w i th i n ten t to com m i t a cr i m e.” T aylor , 495 U
. S

. at 599
. U n der A ri zona l aw , “ [ a] person com m i t s bu rgl ary i n t h e sec on d-degr ee by en tering or rem a i n i n g u n l a w full y in or o n a r e s i d en ti a lstru ctu re w i th th e inten t t o com m i t an y th eft or a n y felon y th ere i n . ” A RIZ . R EV . S TAT
. § 1 3 -1 5 0 7 (A ).N o. 07- 10177

See United States v. Reina-Rodriguez , 468 F.3 d 114 7, 115 5 (9th Cir. 200 6) (notingth at 1 Taylor requir es onlyth at the defen dantform the inte nt to c ommit acri me while unl awfully re mainin go nth e pr em is es), overru led on ot her groun ds by United States v. Grisel , 48 8 F .3d 8 4 4 , 8 5 1 n .5( 9 thC ir .) , cert . de nied , 1 2 8S

. C t. 4 2 5(2 0 0 7). Id

. 2 3 O n i t s fac e , t he Ar i z o na s t at ut e i s i ndi s t i ngu i s hab l e f r o m t he ge ne r i c c o nt e m po r ar y de f

i ni t i o n o f

b ur gl ar y ad o pt e d i n T aylor . I n d e e d , th e T e n th C ir c u it
c i t e d § 13

- 15 07 and c o nc l ude d t hat i ti s “ unc o nt e s t e d t hatb ur gl ar y o f a dwel l i ng is a c r im e o f v io le n c e ” u n d e rth e fe d e r a l s e n te n c in gg u id e lin e s . Uni t e d S t at e s v. Cor ne l i o - Pe na , 4 35 F. 3d 1 27 9, 1 28 2 ( 10 t h Ci r . 20 06 )

. The de f i ni t i o n o f

“ vi o l e nt fel ony” und er § 924( e) ( 2) ( B ) i s i dent i c al t o t he def i ni t i on o f

“ c r i m e o f

vi ol enc e” as u s e d in th e s e n te n c in gg u id e lin e s . Uni t e d St at e s v . Mo hr , 55 4 F
. 3 d 60 4 , 60 9 ( 5 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). I n Uni t e d St at e s v . Bona t , 1 06 F
. 3d 1 472 , 1 475 (9t h C i r. 199 7) , how ever, t h e courtob se rv e d th a t A riz o n a ’ s c o u rts h a d b ro a d e n e d th e d e fin iti o n of b u rgl ary t o al l ow f

or a c on vi ct i on i f

the i n t en tto com m i ta cri m e w as f orm ed aft er entr y i nt o a re s i de nt i alst r uc t ur e ori f ent r y w as pr i vi l e ge d. I f i ti s a s s um e d t hatt he N i nt h Ci r c ui t ’ s a s s e s s m e nto f Ar i z o na j ur i s pr ude nc e o n t he fo r m at i o n of i nt e nt i s c o r r e c t , t hata s s e s s m e ntno ne t he l e s s has no s i gni f i c anc e unl e s s one f

i r s tc o nc l ude s t hat t he de f

i ni t i o n o f ge ne r i c bur gl ar y r e qui r e s t hat a de fe nda ntf o r m t he in te n t t o c o m m it a cr im e b e fo r e e n te r in ga s tr u c tu r e . T aylorco n ta in s n o e x p lic it
r e qui r e m e nt , a nd s uc h a re qui r e m e ntw o ul d b e i nc o ns i s t e ntw i t h t he “ r e m ai ni ng in ” a sp e ct o f T

aylor ’ s def

i ni t i on. Si nce dec i di ng Bonat , t he N i nt h C i r c ui thas expr e s s e d d o ubtabo uta re qui r e m e ntof i nt e ntupon ent r y. “ To ho l d [ t hati nt e nt 1
m u stbe f

orm ed p ri or t o entry] w ou l d rend er T aylor ’ s ‘ r em ai ning i n’ l anguage s u r p lu s a g e .” 2 W e have s ugges t ed t hat gener i c bu r gl ar y r equi r es t he def endant t o have fo r m e d a n in te n t t o co m m it a cr im e b e fo r e e n te r in gth e p r e m is e s . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Herr era- Mon t es , 4 9 0 F .3 d 3 9 0 , 3 9 2 & n .2 (5 th C ir .), cer t
. den i ed , 128N o. 07- 10177

See United States v. Garcia-Lopez , 26 2 F. App’x584, 585(5th Cir. 20 08) (hol ding th at 3 it was no t pl ainerror to treata violationof § 1 3-15 07 as gene ric bur gl aryu nder Taylor be

cau seth e law wa s un se ttle d)

. See United States v. Murillo-Lopez , 44 4 F.3 d 337 , 339 -45 (5th Cir. 200 6) (C aliforni a 4 st atute); United States v. Garcia-Mendez , 4 2 0F .3 d 4 5 4 , 4 5 6 -5 7( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 5) (T ex a s) ; United States v. Cordob a-Pos os , 2 9 5F
. App ’x6 5 1 , 6 5 5( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 8) (I llinoi s)

. 4 S . C t. 4 1 0 ( 2 0 0 7 ). Herr era- Mon t es , h ow ev er, d i d n ot con cern “rem a i n i n g in ” a st ructure, an d w e ha ve n ot h ad occasi on t o reconci l e t h e “ rem ai n i n g i n ” aspect
o f T aylor w ith a r e q u ir e m e n t fo r in te n t a t th e tim e o f e n tr y . Bonatdoes not es

t abli sh that i tw as a cl ear or obvious error f or t h e di st ri ct court t o ha ve t reat ed A ri zona sec on d-degree burglary as gen eri c burgl ary u n der T aylor

.

3 D avi s c ont ends t hat t he A r i zo na st at ut e i s br oade r t han gener i c bur gl ar y, bec ause i tal l ow s a c onvi c t i on bas ed o n b u r gl ar y o f a v ehi c l e. Sec t i on 13- 1507 p r o s c r ib e s “e n te r in go rre m a in in gu n la w fu lly in o ro n a re s id e n tia l s tr u c t u r e .” § 1 3 -1 5 0 7 (A ). T h e d e fin itio n o f “r e s id e n tia l s tr u c tu r e ” in c lu d e s v e h ic le s o n ly if th e y a r e “a d a p te d fo rb o th h u m a n re s id e n c e a n d lo d g in g .” § 1 3 -1 5 0 1 (1 1 ), (1 2 ). S u ch st atutes describe gen eri c burgl ary w h ere t h ey ap pl y t o veh i cl es w h en used
as r e s i de nc e s o rha bi t at i o ns . Davi s sho w s no c l e aro ro bv i o us e r r o rr e ga r di ng 4 A ri zo n a ’ s d efi n i ti on of “reside n ti a lstru ctu re.” T h e j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED.