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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 6- 40 18

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

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.

Mar va nc e J. R ob in so 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: Sep te m

be r 18 , 20 17
Fi le d: Sep te m

be r 28 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Mar va nc e Ro bi ns on ap pe al s th e di st ric t cou rt' s 75 -m on th se nt en ce, im po se d 1

fo ll owi ng hi s co nv ic ti on for be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm in vi ol at io n o f

The Hon or ab l e D e a n W hi pp le , Un it ed 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.18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ). Thi s is Ro bi ns on 's se co nd ap pe al

. In Uni te d

St at es v. Ro bi ns on (Ro bi ns on I), 82 6 F.3 d 10 44 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ), Ro bi ns on arg ue d th at

th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in fin di ng th at hi s two pr i o r fel on y co nv ic ti on s– a 20 13

Mi ss ou ri co nv ic ti on fo r res is ti ng arre st by fle ei ng , an d a 20 08 Kan sa s co nv ic ti on fo r

ro bb ery–were cr im es of vi ol en ce, wh ic h i nc reas ed hi s s en te nc e p ur su an t t o Un it ed

St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s §§ 2K2 .1(a )(2 ) an d 4B 1.2 (a). Afte r rev ie win g th e 2

reco rd

, we co ul d no t de te rm in e whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t ha d en ha nc ed th e se nt en ce

pu rs ua nt to t h e f

o rce cl au se or th e res id ua l cl au se of § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2)

, an d th us

rem an de d to th e di st ric t co ur t fo r cl ari fic at io n. Ro bi ns on I, 82 6 F.3 d at 10 45 -4 6. W e

no te d th at if th e di st ric t cou rt u se d th e res id ua l clau se to cl as si fy th e res is ti ng arre st

of fen se , i t wou ld no t be pl ai n erro r be cau se at t ha t ti m e, th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of th e
Gui de li ne s' res id ua l cl au se was an "o pe n qu es ti on " in th is ci rcu it

. Id . a t 10 45

. W e

al so no te d th at whi le th e Mi ss ou ri fle ei ng arre st wou ld no t qu al ify un de r th e fo rce
cl au se , th e di st ric t co ur t "m ay ha ve to de te rm in e whe th er th e ot he r cri m e th at it us ed

to in crea se Ro bi ns on 's se nt en ce, a co nv ic ti on fo r ro bb ery, qu al ifi es h i m f or an

en ha nc em en t." Id. at 10 46

.

Upo n rem an d, Ro bi ns on arg ue d to th e di st ric t co ur t th at ne i t h e r th e res is ti ng

arre st no r th e r o b b ery co nv ic ti on qu al ifi ed as cri m es of vi ol en ce. Afte r he ari ng

arg um en ts

, th e di st ric t co ur t cl ari fie d th at Ro bi ns on 's pr io r of fen se fo r Kan sa s

ro bb ery was a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r th e fo rce cl au se , a nd th e Mi ss ou ri res is ti ng

arre st was a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r th e res id ua l clau se , an d st at ed "[t ]he 75 -m on th

se nt en ce re m ai ns th e sa m e as I pr ev io us ly sen te nc ed ."

U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(a )(2 ) pr ov id es a ba se of fen se le ve l of 24 if th e de f en da nt 2

co m m it te d th e in st an t of

fen se su bs eq ue nt to su st ai ni ng at le as t tw o fel on y co nv ic ti on s of a cri m e of vi ol en ce. U

. S

. S

. G. § 4B 1.2 (a) (2 01 4) de fin es "cr im e of vi ol en ce" to in cl ud e a fel on y 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 on of an ot he r" (th e fo rce cl au se ) or "o th erwi se in vo lv es

co nd uc t th at pr es en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ris k of ph y si cal in jury t o a no th er" (th e

res id ua l cl au se ).

-2

-On ap pe al

, Ro bi ns on ap pe ars to co nc ed e th at he can no t pr ev ai l ba se d up on hi s

pr io r res is ti ng of

fen se , an d he in st ead cl ai m s th at th e Kan sa s ro bb ery co nv ic ti on do es

no t qu al ify un de r th e fo rce cl au se

. Ro bi ns on ci te s an un pu bl is he d, no n- pr eced en ti al

or de r an d jud gm en t fro m th e Ten th Ci rcu it in su pp or t of hi s arg um en t. Uni te d St at es

v. Nich ol as , 68 6 F. App 'x 57 0, 57 5- 76 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 17 ). In Nich ol as , th e co ur t he ld

th at th e de gr ee o f p h y si cal fo rce req ui red to co m m it ro bb ery in Kan sa s do es no t 3

ne ces sa ril y ris e to th e le ve l of ph y si cal fo rce req ui red to es ta bl is h a cri m e of vi ol en ce

in li gh t of Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 5 5 9 U.S. 13 3, 14 0 (2 01 0) (d efi ni ng "p hysic al

fo rce" in th e "fo rce cl au se " to m ean vi ol en t fo rce cap ab le of cau si ng ph y si cal pa in or

in jury to an ot he r). The Nich ol as co ur t rel ie d up on St at e v. McKi nn ey , 96 1 P.2 d 1
(Kan

. 19 98 ) in co m in g to th is co nc lu si on

. In McKi nn ey , th e de fen da nt arg ue d to th e jury th at he m erel y sn at ch ed a wom an 's pu rs e, bu t di d no t sh ov e he r, an d th eref or e th e

co ur t sh ou ld ha ve in st ru ct ed th e jury on th e le ss er in cl ud ed of fen se of th eft

. The

Kan sa s Su pr em e Co ur t ag reed wit h th e go ve rn m en t th at ev en if th e de fen da nt 's

ve rs io n of ev en ts was tru e, he co ul d st il l be co nv ic te d of ro bb ery. Id

. at 8. Howev er,

th e co ur t al so no te d th at "t he ft is no t co m m it te d whe re th e th ie f ha s us ed fo rce to ga in

po ss es si on of t he pro pe rty." I d. Non et he le ss , b as ed up on McKi nn ey , th e Nic ho la s

c o ur t fo un d th at th e m in im um fo rce– sn at ch in g a pu rs e wit ho ut sh ov in g– po ss ib l e

u n d e r Kan sa s la w to su pp or t a ro bb ery co nv ic ti on di d no t qu al ify as su ffi ci en tl y
vi ol en t fo rce cap ab le of cau si ng ph y si cal pa in or in jury as req ui red by Jo hn so n. 68 6
F. App 'x 5 75 -7 6.

D es pi te ou r si st er ci rcu it 's reas on in g in Nich ol as , we fin d th at Ro b i n s o n ' s

arg um en ts co nc ern in g th e Kan sa s ro bb ery st at ut e are fo recl os ed by ou r pa ne l op in io n

in Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn, 55 0 F.3 d 72 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). In Bro wn, we co ns tru ed th e

Ro bi ns on was co nv ic te d un de r a Kan sa s st at ut e whi ch de fin es ro bb ery as "t he 3

ta ki ng of pr op ert y fro m th e pe rs on or pr es en ce of a n ot he r by fo rce or by th reat of
bo di ly harm

to an y pe rs on ." Kan . Sta t. § 21 -3 46 2 (1 99 9) (rep eal ed 20 11 ).

-3

-sa m e Kan sa s ro bb ery st at ut e un de r § 4B 1.2 (a)( 1) an d fo un d th at it ha s as an el em en t

"t he us e, at te m

pt ed us e, or th reat en ed us e of ph y si c al fo rce ag ai ns t th e pe rs on of

an ot he r." Id . at 7 29 (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . W e fu rth er n ot ed th at App li cat io n No te 1

to th e Co m

m en ta ry fo r § 4B 1.2 "d efi ne [d ] 'cri m e of vi ol en ce' to in cl ud e ro bb ery. " Id

. Bec au se Bro wn sq ua rel y de ci de d th e is su e in qu es ti on , an d is bi nd in g pr eced en t up on

ou r pa ne l (wh il e Nich ol as is no t)

, w e r e je ct Ro bi ns on 's arg um en t th at hi s pr ev io us

co nv ic ti on fo r ro bb ery do es no t qu al ify un de r th e fo rce cl au se as a pr ed ic at e of fen se

fo r § 4 B1 .2(a ). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e d is tri ct co ur t.

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

-4

-