# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 8- 22 12

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
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.

Que nt in R. Hern do n

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: Apri l 1 9, 2 01 9 Fi le d: Ju ly 16, 2 01 9 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , KELL Y and KOBES, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Que nt in R. Hern do n pl ead ed gu il ty to be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ). At se nt en c i n g , t he di st ric t 1

W e no te th at th e writ te n jud gm en t r e f l e c t s a cl eri cal erro r. Sp eci fic al ly, th e 1 jud gm en t de sc rib e s t he co nv ic ti on as ari si ng un de r § 92 4( e)(1 ). Bu t th e reco rdco ur t de te rm in ed th at Hern do n’s 19 97 Mi ss ou ri co nv ic ti on fo r r e s i st in g arre st 2

qu al ifi ed as a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce,” an d as a res ul t, i t cal cu la te d a ba se of fen se le ve l
of 20 un de r Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g G u i de li ne s § 2K2 .1(a )(4 )(A) (2 01 6) an d a

reco m m en de d Gui de li ne s ran ge of 77 to 96 m on th s. Hern do n ap pe al s hi s 78 -m on th

se nt en ce, co nt en di ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in cal cu la ti ng hi s ba se of fen se le ve l.

W e rev ie w de no vo whe th er a pr io r co nv ic ti on qu al ifi es as a cri m e of vi ol en ce. See Uni te d St at es v. Ri ce, 81 3 F.3 d 70 4, 70 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). The Gui de li ne s de fin e

a cri m e of vi ol en ce as “ an y of fen se un de r fed eral or st at e l a w, pu ni sh ab le by
im pr is on m en t f

o r a te rm ex ceed in g on e y ear, th at

. . . 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 o n o f a n o th er,”

am on g ot he r th in gs

. § 4B 1.2 (a). W e of te n refe r to th is as pe ct of th e de fin it io n as th e fo rce c la us e. See Un it ed Sta te s v . Boo se , 73 9 F .3d 11 85 , 11 86 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4) . To
de te rm in e whe th er Hern do n’s pr io r co nv ic ti on is a cri m e of vi ol en ce, we lo ok “ to th e el em en ts of th e of

fen se as de fin ed in th e st at ut e of co nv ic ti on rat he r th an to th e fact s

un de rlyin g t he de fen da nt ’s pri or co nv ic ti on .” Ric e, 83 1 F .3d at 7 05 (cl ean ed up ).

Hern do n was con vi ct ed in Mi ss ou ri st at e co ur t of resi st in g arres t in vi ol at io n of Mo . Rev . Sta t. § 57 5.1 50 .1(1 ), whi ch pro vi de s,

A pe rs on co m

m it s th e cri m e of res is ti ng or in te rfer in g wit h arre st if

. . . th e p ers on

. . . [r]esi st s t he arre st

. . . by usi ng or t hr eat en in g t he us e o f vi ol en ce o r ph y si cal for ce o r by fleei ng fro m su ch off ic er . . . .

refl ect s th at Hern do n was in di ct ed un de r § 9 2 4 ( a ) ( 2 ), Hern do n pl ead ed gu il ty to § 92 4( a)(2 ), th e pa rti es an d th e di st ric t co ur t ag reed th at § 92 4( e)(1 )’s s t a t u t o r y

en ha nc em en t di d no t app ly to Hern do n, and th e di st ric t cou rt sen te nc ed Hern do n to

a te rm of im

pr is on m en t co ns is te nt wit h § 92 4( a)(2 ). The refo re, we m od ify th e writ te n jud gm en t t o re fle ct th at th e co nv ic ti on ari se s u nd er § 92 4( a)(2 ).

The Hon or ab le Gary A. Fen ne r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t Ju dg e f o r th e 2 W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-In Uni te d S ta te s v . Sho ck le y , 81 6 F .3d 10 58 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ), we ex pl ai ne d t ha t t hi s

st at ut e “ in cl ud es co nd uc t th at fal ls un de r th e

. . . fo rce cl au se , su ch as res is ti ng arre st

. . . ‘by us in g or th reat en in g th e us e of vi ol en ce or ph y si cal fo rce,’ [b ut it ] al so de fin es th e of fen se to in cl ud e fle ei ng fro m an of fic er,” whi ch do es no t fal l un de r th e fo rce cl au se

. Id. at 10 63

.

3

Hern do n do es no t arg ue th at § 57 5.1 50 .1(1 ) is in di vi si bl e in li gh t of Mat hi s v. Uni te d St at es , 13 6 S. Ct

. 22 43 (2 01 6)
, whi ch was de ci de d a f t er Sh oc kl ey , an d he

co nc ed es th at he was co nv ic te d un de r th e us e-o f-fo rce po rti on of th e st at ut e. His so le

arg um en t on ap pe al is th at Sh oc kl ey ’s tre at m en t of th at po rti on of th e st at ut e is di ct a th at th is pa ne l is no t bo un d to fo ll ow be cau se Sh oc kl ey rem a n d e d th e cas e to th e di st ric t co ur t to de te rm in e whi ch po rti on of th e st at ut e th e de fen da nt ’s pr io r

co nv ic ti on fel l u nd er. See id . at 1 06 3– 64

.

Hern do n’s arg um en t is no t pe r s u a s i v e

. The co nc lu si on th at th e us e-o f-fo rce
po rti on of th e st at ut e sa ti sf ie s th e fo rce cl au se was ne ces sa ry to Sh oc kl ey ’s ho ld in g,

as rem an d wou ld no t ha ve be en ne ces sa ry if it w ere im po ss ib le fo r an y co nv ic ti on

un de r § 57 5.1 50 .1(1 ) to sa ti sf y th e fo rce cl au se

. Hern do n gi ve s us no reas on to

qu es ti on th e di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on fo r res is ti ng arre st

qu al ifi es as a cri m e o f vi ol en ce.

Acco rd in gl y , th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed as m od ifi ed

.

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

Sh o c k l ey an al y zed th e Arm ed Care er Cri m in al Act’s fo rce cl au se , whi ch is 3 in te rch an ge ab le wit h th e Gui de li ne s’ fo rce cl au se

. See Uni te d St at es v. Vin cen t, 57 5 F.3 d 8 20 , 82 6 (8 th Cir . 20 09 ).

-3

-