# 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- 35 06

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

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.

Iy au n D. Bel 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 Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - C ap e Gir ard eau

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 4, 2 01 6
Fil ed : Oct ob er 2 8, 2 01 6

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re GRUENDER, BRIGHT, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BRIGHT, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Iy au n Bel l pl ead ed gu il ty to be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. Pri or to

se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t cal cu la te d Bel l's ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge ba se d in pa rt

on th e co nc lu si on th at Bel l ha d a pr io r co nv ic ti on th at qu al ifi ed as a "cr i me of

vi ol en ce" un de r Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l (U.S.S.G.)
§ 2K2 .1(a )(4 )(A), a cal cu la ti on whi ch in crea se d th e ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge

. Afte rth e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Bel l to th irt y -s ev en mo n t h s o f im pr is on m en t, Bel l fil ed

th is ap pe al arg ui ng hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on do es no t qu al ify as a cri m e of vi ol en ce. W e

rev ers e an d re m an d fo r res en te nc in g.

I

On Mar ch 14 , 2 01 5, an of fic er in it ia te d a ve hi cl e st op

. The of fic er ob se rv ed

th e dr iv er thr ow an ob

ject ou t of the ve hi cl e's win do w. The of fic er wen t to th e area
whe re th e ob

ject la nd ed an d lo cat ed a fir earm wit h ei gh t ro un ds of am m un it io n. The

dr iv er fl ed . Pol ic e ev en tu al ly app reh en de d t he dri ve r an d i de nt ifi ed hi m as B el l.

A fed eral gr an d jury in di ct ed Bel l wit h on e co un t of 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. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 )

. Bel l pl ead ed gu il ty. Pri or to

se nt en ci ng , a pr ob at io n of fic er co m pl et ed a Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n Rep or t (PSR ).

The PSR cal cu la te d a ba se -o ffen se le ve l of 20 aft er co nc lu di ng Bel l ha d a co nv ic ti on

un de r Mi ss ou ri la w fo r se co nd -d eg ree ro bb ery th at qu al ifi ed as a "cr im e of vi ol en ce."

See U.S.S.G. § 2K 2

. 1 ( a ) ( 4 )(A) (p ro vi di ng fo r a ba se -o ffen se le ve l of 20 if "t he

de fen da nt co m

m it te d an y pa rt of th e in st an t of fen se su bs eq ue nt to su st ai ni ng on e
fel on y co nv ic ti on of

. . . a cri m e of vi ol en ce" ). Be l l o bjec te d. The di st ric t co ur t reject ed Bel l's ob

jecti on , ad op te d th e PSR's reco mm en da ti on , an d cal cu la te d Bel l's

ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge at 37 -4 6 m on th s. The di st ric t c o ur t th en se nt en ced Bel l

to th irt y -s ev en m on th s o f im pr is on m en t. Thi s t im el y

ap pe al fol lo wed

.

II

A

Bel l ar g u e s hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on fo r se co nd -d eg ree ro bb ery sh ou ld no t ha ve
be en us ed to in crea se hi s ba se -o ffen se le ve l be cau se it do es no t qu al ify as a cri m e of

vi ol en ce. "We rev ie w de no vo a d i s t r i ct co ur t's de te rm in at io n th at an of fen se

-2

-qu al ifi es as a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r th e Gui de li ne s." Uni te d St at es v. Harri so n, 80 9

F.3 d 42 0, 42 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). Unl e s s a st at ut e is di vi si bl e, i.e., de fin es m ul ti pl e

of fen se s so m e of whi ch wou ld qu al ify as cri m es of vi ol en c e a n d s o me of whi ch

wou ld no t, we " fo cu s o n t he ge ne ric ele m en ts of th e of fen se an d no t on th e sp eci fic

fact s un de rlyin g [th e de fe n da nt 's] co nv ic ti on ." Uni te d St at es v. Gor do n, 55 7 F.3 d

62 3, 62 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Oss an a, 6 3 8 F .3d 89 5, 89 9- 90 0
(8 th Ci r. 2 0 1 1 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th e di ffer en ce be twee n th e cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch

ap pl ic ab le to in di vi si bl e st at ut es , a nd th e m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa c h ap pl ic ab le

to di vi si bl e st at ut es ).

Sect io n 2K2 .1 in co rp or at es th e de fin it io n of "cr im e of vi ol e n c e " u s e d in §

4B 1.2 (a). See U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1 cm t. n.1

. Und er th e rel ev an t pr ov is io n of § 4B 1.2 (a),

th e p h r a s e " c r i m e of vi ol en ce" m ean s "an y of fen se [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."

In Mi ss ou ri, "[a ] pe rs on co m m it s th e cri m e of ro bb ery in th e se co nd de gr ee whe n he

fo rci bl y st eal s p ro pe rty." Mo . Rev . Sta t. § 56 9.0 30 .1. The te rm "fo rci bl y st eal s" is

fu rth er de fin ed in a se pa rat e st at ut e pr ov id in g in rel ev an t pa rt th at "a pe rs on 'fo rci bl y

st e a l s,' an d th ereb y co m

m it s ro bb ery, whe n, in th e co ur se of st eal in g

. . . h e us es or

th reat en s th e im m ed ia te us e of ph y si cal fo rce up on an ot he r pe rs on ." Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 5 69 .01 0( 1)

. Acco rd in gl y , Mis so ur i cou rts ha ve id en ti fie d § 56 9.0 30 .1 as set ti ng

1

fo rth a si ng le in di vi si bl e c rime co nt ai ni ng two ge ne ric el em en ts : "s te al in g an d th e

Sect io n 56 9.0 10 f

u r t he r st at es th e us e or th reat of im m ed ia te ph y si cal fo rce 1

m us t be fo r cert ai n en um erat ed pu rp os es : (a) to pr ev en t or ov erco m e res is ta nc e to th e
ta ki ng of pr op ert y or th e ret en ti on of pr op ert y im m ed ia te ly aft er th e ta ki ng ; or (b ) to

co m pe l th e pr op ert y 's own er or an ot he r pe rs on "t o de li v er up th e pr op ert y or to

en ga ge in ot he r co nd uc t w h i c h ai ds in co m m is si on of th e th eft ." The Mi ss ou ri
Su pr em e C o u r t ha s ch arac te riz ed th es e en um erat ed pu rp os es as "ei th er de feat in g

res is ta nc e to th e th eft or co m pe ll in g th e su rren de r of th e pr op ert y ." St at e v. Co le m an , 46 3 S .W .3d 35 3, 3 54 (Mo . 20 15 ) (en ba nc ).

-3

-u s e o f a c t ua l or th reat en ed fo rce." Mac li n v. St at e, 18 4 S.W .3d 10 3, 10 9 (Mo

. C t

.

App . 20 06 ); s ee al so Hug he s v . Sta te , 20 4 S .W .3d 37 6, 3 81 (Mo . Ct. Ap p. 2 00 6)

. 2

At fi rs t b lu sh , t he n, it ap pe ars as th ou gh Bel l's co nv ic ti on wou ld qu al ify as a
cri m e of vi ol en ce: a cri m e of vi ol en ce 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 a g a i n st an ot he r pe rs on , an d an el em en t of se co nd

de gr ee ro bb ery in Mi ss ou ri is th e us e or th re at of "p hysic al fo rce up on an ot he r

pe rs on ." Mo . Rev . Sta t. § 56 9.0 10 (1 ).

The amo un t of ph y si cal fo rce req ui red fo r a pe rs on to be co nv ic te d of se co nd

de gr ee ro bb ery in Mi ss ou ri do es no t, ho wev er, "n eces sa ril y " r i s e to th e le ve l of
ph y si cal fo rce req ui red fo r a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r th e Gui de li ne s. See Oss an a, 63 8

F

. 3 d a t 9 00 (ex pl ai ni ng a co nv ic ti on m us t " ne ces sa ri ly " in vo lv e th e us e, at te m pt ed

us e, o r t h r e a t e ne d us e of ph y si cal fo rce to qu al ify as a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r th e
Gui de li ne s) . The Su pr em e Co ur t h as de sc rib ed th is as a "d em an di ng req ui rem en t."

Sh ep ard v. Un it ed Sta te s, 5 44 U.S. 13 , 24 (20 05 ) (p lu ral it y op in io n)

.

Acco rd in g to th e Su pr em e Co ur t, "p hysic al fo rce" m ean s "v io le nt fo rce— th at

is

, fo rce cap ab le of c a us in g ph y si cal pa in or in jury to an ot he r pe rs on ." Jo hn so n v.
Uni te d St at es , 55 9 U.S. 13 3, 14 0 (2 01 0)

. Thu s, th e "m eres t to uc h" is in su ffi ci en t, 3

As to th e se co nd el em en t req ui rin g th e us e of act ua l or t h r eat en ed fo rce, 2

Mi ss ou ri' s ap pr ov ed m od el cri m in al jury in st ru ct io n fo r ro bb ery in th e se co nd de gr ee fu rth er e x p l a i n s th at th e us e or th reat of fo rce m us t be fo r on e of th e pu rp os es

en um erat ed in Sect io n 5 69 .01 0. Se e MAI- CR 3 d 3 23 .04

.

Alt ho ug h Jo hn so n de sc rib ed th e m ean in g of "p hysic al fo rce" fo r pu rp os es of 3

de te rm in in g a "v io le nt fe l o ny" un de r th e Arm ed Care er Cri m in al Act (ACCA), 18
U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (i)

, th e ph ras e ha s th e id en ti cal m ean in g fo r pu rp os es of
de te rm in in g a "cri m e of vi ol en ce" un de r th e Gui de li ne s. See, e.g ., Un it ed St at es v. Bo os e, 73 9 F .3d 11 85 , 11 87 n.1 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4)

.

-4

-bu t th e "d eg ree of fo rce ne ces sa ry to in fli ct pa in —a sl ap in th e face

, fo r ex am pl e" is

su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h "p hysic al fo rce." I d

. a t 1 43

. W he n de te rm in in g whe th er

Mi ss ou ri' s se co nd -d eg ree ro bb ery st at ut e req ui res th e le ve l of vi ol en t fo rce de sc rib ed

in Jo hn so n, we m

us t co ns id er no t jus t th e la ng ua ge of th e st at e st at ut e in vo lv ed

, bu t

al so th e Mi ss ou ri co ur ts ' in te rp ret at io n of th e el em en ts of se co nd -d eg ree ro bb ery. See

id . a t 13 8 ("We a r e

. . . bo un d by t he [s ta te ] Su pr em e Co ur t's in te rp ret at io n of st at e

la w, in cl ud in g it s de te rm in at io n of th e el em en ts of [th e st at e st at u t e

. ]" ) ; s ee al so

W es te rn Heri ta ge In s. Co

. v. Asp ha lt W iz ard s, 79 5 F.3 d 83 2

, 8 3 7 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 15 )
("[ W ]e fo ll ow th e de ci si on s of Mi ss ou ri' s in te rm ed ia te c ou rts whe n th ey co ns ti tu te

th e b es t ev id en ce o f Mi ss ou ri l aw.").

Mo reo ve r, whe n ou r fo cu s is on th e ge ne ric el em en ts of th e of fen se – as is th e

cas e he re – rat he r th an a sp eci fic de fen da n t ' s co nd uc t, we m us t co ns id er th e lo wes t

le ve l of con du ct th at m ay su pp or t a co nv ic ti on un de r th e st at ut e. See Mon cri effe v.
Hol de r,13 3 S.Ct

. 16 78

, 16 84 (2 01 3) ("B ecau se we ex am in e wha t th e st at e co nv ic ti on

ne ces sa ril y in vo lv ed

, no t th e fact s un de rlyin g th e cas e, we m us t pr es um e th at th e

co nv ic ti on 'res te d up on [n ot hi ng ] m or e th an th e le as t of th [e] act s' cri m in al iz ed

, an d

th en de te rm in e whe th er ev en th os e act s [wo ul d qu al ify as a c r i me o f vi ol en ce].")
(q uo ti ng Jo hn so n, 55 9 U.S. at 13 7)

. Alt ho ug h th e "t he or et ic al po ss ib il it y " th at a st at e

may ap pl y it s st at ut e to co nd uc t fal li ng sh or t of vi ol en t fo rce is no t en ou gh t o
di sq ua li fy a co nv ic ti on , a "re al is ti c pr ob ab il it y " wil l su ffi ce. See id

. at 16 85 (q uo ti ng

Gon zal es v. Du en as -Alv arez , 54 9 U.S. 1 83 , 19 3 (2 00 7) ).

A Mi ss ou ri co ur t up he ld a co nv ic ti on fo r se co nd -d eg ree ro bb ery in at le as t on e
si t u a t i o n w h ere a de fen da nt 's co nd uc t ap pe ars to ha ve fal le n sh or t of us in g "fo rce

cap ab le of cau si ng ph y si cal pa in or in jury to an ot he r pe rs on ." Jo hn so n, 55 9 U.S. at

14 0. In St at e v. Lewis

, th e Mi ss ou ri Cou rt of App eal s su st ai ne d a co nv ic ti on ba se d

on th e vi ct im 's te st im on y th at th e de fen da nt "'b um pe d he r sh ou ld er an d 'y an ke d' he r

pu rs e away fro m he r[,]" whi le "an ot he r wit ne ss te st ifi ed th at [th e de fen da nt ] 'nu dg ed '

-5

-[th e vi ct im ], " an d y et a "t hi rd wit ne ss te st ifi ed th at th ere was a 'sl ig ht ' st ru gg le " ov er

th e pu rs e. 46 6 S.W .3d 62 9, 6 31 (Mo . Ct. Ap p. 2 01 5)

. Si gn ifi can tl y , th e vi ct im di d

no t te st ify th e sl ig ht st ru gg le cau se d he r an y pa in

, or th at sh e was in jure d by th e

in ci de nt

. Id

. Eve n m or e si gn ifi can tl y , t h e c o u rt ex pl ai ne d th e li ne be twee n th e

am ou nt of fo rce su ffi ci en t to su st ai n a co nv ic ti on f o r s e c on d- de gr ee ro bb ery, an d

in su ffi ci en t fo rce: "In su m , whe re th ere was no ph y si cal co nt act

, no st ru gg le

, an d no

in jury, [Mi ss ou ri] co ur ts ha ve fo un d th e ev id en ce ins uf fic ie nt to su pp or t a [s eco nd

de gr ee] ro bb ery co nv ic ti on

. Bu t whe re on e or mor e of th os e ci rcu m st an ces is pr es en t,

a jury reas on ab ly co ul d fin d a us e of fo rce

. " I d

. a t 63 2 (in te rn al ci ta ti on om it te d)
(em ph as is ad de d)

.

In ot he r wor ds

, in Mi ss ou ri a de fen da nt can be co nv i ct ed of se co nd -d eg ree

ro bb ery whe n he ha s ph y si cal co nt act wit h a v i c ti m bu t do es no t ne ces sa ril y cau se ph y si cal pa in or in

jury. Alt ho ug h th is is no t th e sa m e as co nc lu di ng th e fo rce us ed 4
by su ch a de fen da nt is no t " ca pa bl e of cau si ng ph y si cal pa in or in jury," Jo hn so n, 55 9

U.S. at 13 0 (em

ph as is ad de d)

, it do es le ad us to co nc lu de th ere is at le as t a

"re as on ab le pr ob ab il it y " Mi ss ou ri co ul d ap pl y it s st at ut e (o r al read y ha s) to co nd uc t

fal li ng sh or t of vi ol en t fo rce. Mo nc rie ffe, 13 3 S.Ct

. at 16 85

. Ho w e v er, a se co nd

de gr ee ro bb ery u n d e r Mi ss ou ri la w do es no t ne ces sa ril y req ui re us e of th e type of

vi ol en t fo rce d es cri be d b y th e Su pr em e Co ur t i n J oh ns on

. 5

Alt ho ug h Lewis was de ci de d in 20 15

, th e se ve n Mi ss ou ri cas es th e co ur t 4

su m m ari zed be fo re reac hi ng it s co nc lu si on were de ci de d be twee n 19 66 an d 2 0 1 0

. See id

. Co nt rary t o th e di ss en t's su gg es ti on ot he rwis e, th e res ul t in Lewis do es no t

rep res en t a c ha ng e in Mi ss ou ri l aw, bu t an ap pl ic at io n o f ex is ti ng pre ced en t.

To th e ex te nt ou r pr io r de ci si on s in Uni te d St at es v. Hen ne ck e, 59 0 F.3 d 61 9 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), an d Uni te d St at es v. Green

, 15 7 F.3 d 61 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ), su gg es t th at

a se co nd -d eg r e e ro bb ery un de r Mi ss ou ri la w wou ld qu al ify as a cri m e of vi ol en ce

u n d er th e Gui de li ne s, th ey ha ve no im po rt he re be cau se th ey were de ci de d pr io r t o Jo hn so n. See Uni te d St at es v. And ers on , 77 1 F.3 d 10 64

, 1 0 6 7 ( 8t h Ci r. 20 14 )

-6

-Our co nc lu si on ab ou t Mi ss ou ri' s se c on d- de gr ee ro bb ery st at ut e is co ns is te nt

wit h th e Fo ur th Ci rcu it 's vi ew of co m m on la w ro bb ery un de r Nor th Caro li na la w. See

Uni te d St at es v. Gard ne r, 82 3 F.3 d 79 3, 80 3- 04 (4 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (co nc lu di ng th at "t he

m in im un co nd uc t ne ces sa ry to su st ai n a co nv ic ti on fo r Nor th Caro li na co m m on la w

ro bb ery do es no t" m eet Jo h n s o n ' s vi ol en t fo rce req ui rem en t, rel y in g on st at e co ur t

de ci si on s fin di ng th at "p us hi ng th e vi ct im 's ha nd of f of a cart on o f ci ga ret te s" an d
"p us h[ in g] th e sh ou ld er of an el ect ro ni cs st or e cl erk

, cau si ng he r to fal l on to sh el ve s

w h il e th e de fen da nt to ok po ss es si on of a te le vi si on " in vo lv ed su ffi ci en t fo rc e t o

su st ai n c on vi ct io ns ).

T hus, sta tut es th at cri m in al iz e co nd uc t fal li ng sh or t of Jo hn so n's "vi ole nt fo rc e"

do no t qu al ify as cri m es of vi ol e n c e u n d e r U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(a )(4 )(A). Mi ss ou ri' s

se co nd -d eg ree ro bb ery st at ut e is su ch a st at ut e, be cau se it do es no t ne ces sa ril y req ui re

th e u se of v io le nt for ce as on e o f it s el em en ts

.

B

The go ve rn m en t ar g ue s Bel l's pr io r co nv ic ti on st il l qu al ifi es as a cri m e of

vi ol en ce – ev en if it do es no t ne ces sa ril y in vo lv e th e le ve l of vi ol en t fo rce de sc rib ed

in Jo hn so n – becau se "ro bb ery" is ex pr es sl y en um erat ed as a "cr im e of vi ol en ce" in

th e co m m en ta ry to th e Gui de li ne 's care er of fen de r pr ov is io ns

. See U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2

cm t. n.1 ("F or pu rp os es of th i s g u i de li ne

. . . 'Cri m e of vi ol en ce' in cl ud es m ur de r,

m an sl au gh te r, ki dn ap pi ng , ag gr av at ed as sa ul t, fo rci bl e se x of fen se s, ro bb er

y , ars on ,

ex to rti on , ex to rti on at e ex te ns io n o f c r ed it

, an d bu rg la ry of a dwe ll in g." ) (em ph as is

ad de d) ; U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1 cm t. n. 1 ( i n c o r p or at in g th e m ean in g gi ve n to th e te rm

"cr im e of vi ol en ce" in "Ap pl ic at io n Not e 1 of th e Co m m en ta ry to § 4B 1.2 "); se e al so

(ex pl ai ni ng we are no t bo un d by a pr io r pa ne l de ci si on whe n it "i s cas t in to do ub t by

an in te rv en in g S up rem e Co ur t d eci si on ").

-7

-St in so n v. Uni te d St at es , 50 8 U.S. 36

, 38 (1 99 3) (ex pl ai ni ng th at th e co m m en ta ry to

th e Gui de li ne s "i s au th or it at iv e un le ss it vi ol at es th e Co ns ti tu ti on or a fed eral st at ut e,

or is in co ns is te nt wit h, o r a p la in ly erron eo us read in g o f, th at [G]uid el in e")

.

Bu t at th e ti m e of Bel l's se nt en ci ng – as well as whe n he co m m it te d hi s in st an t

fed eral co nv ic ti on – th e Gui de li ne it se lf di d no t li st ro bb ery as an en um erat ed of fen se

. At th at ti m e, on l y f

o u r cri m es were ex pr es sl y en um erat ed in § 4B 1.2 as cri m es of

vi ol en ce: "b ur gl ary of a dwe ll in g, ars on , . . . ex to rti on , [o r of fen se s] in vo lv [in g th e]

us e of ex pl os iv es ." U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2) (eff ect iv e Nov em

be r 1, 20 14 ). The is su e,

6

t he n, is whe th er th e go ve rn m en t can rel y so le ly up on th e co m m en ta ry whe n i t

exp an ds up on th e fo ur of

fen se s sp eci fic al ly en um erat ed in th e Gui de li ne it se lf. The

an swe r is no

.

In a po st -J oh ns on de ci si on , th e Fi rs t Ci rcu it co ns id ered whe th er th e in cl us io n

of an of fen se in th e co m

m en ta ry to § 4B 1.2 , s ta nd in g al on e, w a s e no ug h to qu al ify

an of fen se as a cri m e of vi ol en ce. See Uni te d St at es v. So to -Ri ve ra, 81 1 F.3 d 53 (1 st

Ci r. 20 16 ). Defen da nt So to -Ri ve ra arg ue d hi s cri m e of po ss es si ng a m ach in eg un di d

no t qu al ify as a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r ei th er th e Gui de li ne 's "fo r c e " c l a u s e (th e

sa m e cl au se at is su e he re), or th e Gui de li ne 's "re si du al cl au se " (id en ti cal to th e ACCA

res id ua l cl au se t h e S u p rem e Co ur t de cl ared un co ns ti tu ti on al in Jo hn so n)

. The

go ve rn m en t co nc ed ed bo th po in ts

, bu t arg ue d So to -Ri ve ra's cri m e st il l co un te d as a
cri m e of vi ol en ce be cau se it was in cl ud ed in th e co m m en ta ry to § 4B 1.2

. Id

. at 58 -5 9.

The Fi rs t Ci rcu it di sa gr eed

, ho ld in g th at a Gui de li ne 's co m m en t a r y m

us t be

co ns is te nt wit h th e Gui de li ne it se lf. Id

. at 60

. The co ur t ex pl ai ne d th e co m m en ta ry 's

Su bs eq ue nt to Jo hn so n, th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on am en de d § 4 B 1 .2, 6

effe ct iv e Aug us t 1, 20 16

. The Gui de li ne it se lf no w ex pr es sl y en um erat es "ro bb ery"

as a cri m e of vi ol en ce, as well as a nu m be r of ot he r of

fen se s whic h were pr ev io us ly

en um erat ed on ly in t he co m m en ta ry

.

-8

-in cl us io n of an of fen se m ay ha ve be en co ns is te nt wit h th e Gui de li ne whe n th ere was

a res id ua l cl au se in pl ace t o g iv e th e o ffen se a "t ex tu al ho ok ," id . at 6 0, b ut be cam e

in co ns is te nt in th e ab se nc e o f th e res id ua l cl au se :

W it h § 4B 1.2 (a) st rip pe d of it s res id ua l cl a u s e , th e go ve rn m en t's

po si ti on th at we m ay rel y on App li cat io n Not e 1 to up ho ld So to -Ri ve ra's
de si gn at io n a s a C a r e e r Offen de r is ho pe le ss

. . . . [P]os se ss io n [o f a

m ach in eg un ] is cl earl y no t on e of th os e sp eci fic al ly-enu m erat ed cri m es li s t e d in U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2)

. Thu s, in th e ab se nc e of th e res id ua l
cl au se , th ere is no th in g wit hi n § 4B 1.2 (a)'s te xt to se rv e as an an ch or fo r App li cat io n Not e 1's in cl us io n of po ss es si on of a m ach in eg un wit hi n th e de fin it io n o f cri m e o f vi ol en ce.

Id

.

Si mi l a r l y, in th is cas e, ro bb ery was no t on e of th e sp eci fic al ly-enu m erat ed

cri m es li st ed in th e ve rs io n of § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2) whi ch ap pl ie d to Bel l. Pri or to Jo hn so n,

th e res id ua l cl au se m ay

ha ve ser ve d as an anch or fo r th e co m m en ta ry 's i nc lu si on of

"ro bb ery" as a cri m e of vi ol en ce be cau se it "o th erwi se in vo l v e [ d ] 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 n ot he r." U.S.S.G. §

4B 1.2 (a)( 2) (eff

ect iv e Nov em

be r 1, 20 14 ). Po st -J oh ns on , ho wev er, § 4B 1.2 's

co m m en ta ry , s t a n d in g al on e, can no t se rv e as an in de pe nd en t ba si s fo r a co nv ic ti on

to qu al ify as a cri m e of vi ol en ce be cau se "d oi ng so wou ld be in co ns is te nt wit h th e

po st

- Jo hn so n tex t o f th e Gui de li ne it se lf." Sot o- Ri ve ra, 8 11 F.3d at 6 0.

By it s cl ear la ng ua ge , on ce sh or n of the res id ua l cl au se § 4B 1.2 (a) se ts fo rth a li m it ed un iv ers e of sp eci fic of fen se s th at qu al i f

y as a "cr im e of
vi ol en ce." The re is si m pl y n o mec h a n is m or te xt ua l ho ok in th e Gui de li ne th at al lo ws us to im po rt of fen se s no t sp eci fic al ly li st ed th erei n in to § 4B 1.2 (a)'s de fin it io n of "cr im e of vi ol en ce." Wit h no su ch pa th

av ai la bl e to us , do in g so wou ld be in co ns i s t e n t wit h th e te xt of th e Gui de li ne

.

-9

-Id

. W e ag ree wit h th e Fi rs t Ci rcu it 's reas on in g in So to -Ri ve ra, as ha ve ot he r co ur ts

.

In Uni te d St at es v. Ro ll in s, No. 13 -1 73 1, 20 16 W L 45 87 02 8 (7 th Ci r. Aug

. 29

, 20 16 ),

th e Se v e n t h Ci rcu it reject ed th e go ve rn m en t's arg um en t th at th e co m m en ta ry to §

4B 1.2 in de pe nd en tl y su pp or ts th e ap pl ic at io n of th e Gui de li ne 's care er of fen de r

en ha nc em en ts , con cl ud in g S ot o- Ri ve ra "h as it ex act ly righ t." Id. at *5

.

Und er § 4B 1.2 (a), "cr im e of v i o le nc e" m ean s su bp art 1 (th e el em en ts cl au se ) an d su bp art 2 (th e fo ur sp eci fic cri m es fo ll owe d by th e res id ua l
cl au se ). If th e ap pl ic at io n no te 's li st is no t in te rp ret in g on e of th os e two

su bp art s— an d it is n't on ce th e res id ua l cl au se dr op s ou t— th en it is in
effe ct ad di ng to th e de fin it io n. And th at 's ne ces sa ri ly in co ns is te nt wit h
th e te xt of t he gu id el in e it se lf.

Id

. at *4 ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn, No. 1: 15 CR2 51 -1

, 20 16 W L 44 87 75 9, at

*2 -3 (M.D. N.C. Aug

. 25

, 20 16 ) (fo ll owi ng th e r eas on in g in So to -Ri ve ra an d

c on cl ud in g "t he in cl us io n of ro bb ery in th e co m m en ta ry [to § 4B 1.2 ] i s n o w

in co ns is t e n t w i t h th e Gui de li ne s an d th at po rti on of th e co m m en ta ry sh ou ld be

di sr eg ard ed "). Bel l's pr io r co nv ic ti on do es no t qu al ify as a cri m e of vi ol en ce so le ly

be cau se "ro bb ery" was in cl ud ed in th e co m m e nt ary to § 4B 1.2

, an d we th eref or e reject th e g ov ern m en t's arg um en t t o t he co nt rary. 7

The go ve rn m en t's rel ia nc e up on Uni te d Stat es v. Newto n, 25 9 F.3 d 96 4 (8 th 7

Ci r. 20 01 ), Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn, 55 0 F.3 d 72 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ), an d Uni te d St at es

v. Sawy er, 58 8 F.3 d 54 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ), is of no im po rt be cau se th os e cas es were al l
de ci de d pr io r to Jo hn so n, whe n th e res id ua l cl au se st il l pr ov id ed a te xt ua l ho ok fo r th e co m m en ta ry 's i nc lu si on of o ffen se s n ot ot he rwis e en um erat ed in § 4 B1 .2.

-1 0-III

Fo r th e reas on s se t f

o rth in th is op in io n, we rev ers e an d rem an d fo r

res en te nc in g c on si st en t wi th th is op in io n.

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge , di ss en ti ng

.

The qu es ti on in th is cas e is whe th er Bel l’s se co nd -d eg ree ro bb ery co nv ic ti on

qu al ifi es as a cri m e o f vi ol en ce un de r Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s M an ua l
(“ U.S.S.G.”) § 2K2 .1(a )(4 )(A) an d § 4B 1.2 (a)( 1)

. In m y vi ew, it do es , a s Mi ss ou ri

se co nd -d eg ree ro bb ery ne ces sa ril y req ui res th e type of vi ol en t fo rce de sc rib ed by th e

Su pr em e Co ur t in Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 55 9 U.S. 13 3 (2 01 0)

. Bec au se th e co ur t

reac he s a c on tra ry

co nc lu si on , I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t.

The co ur t rel ie s on di ct a fro m a si ng le cas e to co nc lu de th at Mi ss ou ri se co nd

de gr ee ro bb ery do es no t ne ces sa ril y req ui re fo rce cap ab le of cau si ng ph y si cal pa in or

in jury to an ot he r pe rs on

. Se e St at e v. Lewi s , 4 6 6 S

. W. 3 d 62 9, 63 2 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 15 ). The co ur t la tc he s on to two se nt en ces in St at e v. Lewi s : “ In su m , whe re th ere

was no ph y si cal co nt act

, no st ru gg le

, an d no in jury, [Mi ss ou ri] co ur ts ha ve fo un d th e

ev id en ce in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a [s eco nd -d eg ree] ro bbe ry co nvi ct ion

. Bu t whe re on e

or mor e of th os e ci rcu m st an ces is pr es en t, a jury reas on ab ly co ul d fin d a us e of

fo rce.” Id

. at 63 2 (ci ta ti on s om it te d) (em ph as is ad de d)

. The co ur t th en fo cu se s so le ly

on ho w ph y si cal co nt act do es no t m eet th e fo rce req ui reme n t in Jo hn so n

. Se e

Jo hn so n , 55 9 U.S. at 14 0 (“ [T]he ph ras e ‘physic al fo rce’ m ean s

. . . fo rce cap ab le of

cau si ng ph y si cal pa in or i nju ry to an ot he r pe rs on .”).

In fo cu si ng on th is di ct a, th e co ur t lo se s si gh t of th e ho ld in g of Lewi s

. Se e 46 6

S.W .3d at 63 1- 33

. Fo r se co nd -d eg ree rob be ry to qu al ify as a cri m e of vi ol en ce, th e

us e o r th reat en ed us e o f fo rce i n t he co ur se of s te al in g p ro pe rty from a pe rs on m

us t

-1 1-be , a t a m in im um , “ cap ab le ” of cau si ng pa in or in jury to th at pe rs on

. Se e Jo hn so n , 55 9 U.S. at 14 0. Lewi s do es no t ho ld ot he rwis e. To th e co nt rary, th e Mi ss ou ri Co ur t

of App eal s reaf

fir m ed th e lo ng st an d i n g de fin it io n of se co nd -d eg ree ro bb ery as

“ en ou gh fo rce to pr ev en t or ov erco m e

. . . res is ta nc e,” 46 6 S.W .3d at 63 3, an d up he ld

Lewis ’s se co nd -d eg ree ro bb ery co nv ic ti on whe n he bu m pe d th e vi ct im fro m be hi nd

,

m om en ta ril y st ru gg le d wit h he r, a n d t h e n yank ed th e pu rs e ou t of he r ha nd s, id

. The se act io ns are ak in to “a sl ap in th e face ” an d th eref or e m eet th e Jo hn so n

st an da rd

. Jo hn so n , 55 9 U.S. at 14 3.

Des pi te th e co ur t’s op po si te in te rp ret at io n, Lewi s do es no t de al pr im ari ly wit h
ph y si cal co nt act bu t wit h act io ns th at as a who le are “ cap ab le of cau si ng ph y si cal pa in

or in jury to an ot he r pe rs on .” Id

. at 14 0. Th e di ct a in Lewi s —u nc on ne ct ed fro m it s

fact s— can no t ov erco m e th e co ns is te nt li ne of Mi ss ou ri se co nd -d eg ree ro bb ery cas es

req ui rin g fo rce cap ab le of pr ev en ti ng or ov erco m in g res is ta nc e. In fact

, Lewi s ci te s

to th es e ex act cas es

. Se e St at e v. Ch il ds

, 25 7 S.W .3d 65 5, 66 0 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 08 )
(fi nd in g th at a “ tu ss le ” sa ti sf ie d th e el em en ts of a ro bb ery be cau se “ tu ss li ng ” m ean s fig ht in g, st ru gg li ng , co nt en di ng , wres tl in g, an d sc uf fli ng ); St at e v. Ti vi s , 88 4 S.W .2d

28

, 30 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 94 ) (co nc lu di n g t h a t “y an ki ng ” a pu rs e of f a vi ct im ’s

sh ou ld er is in su ffi ci en t to pr ov e se co nd -d eg ree ro bb ery wit ho ut a st ru gg le or in jury);

St at e v. But le r , 71 9 S.W .2d 35

, 37 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 86 ) ( u p h o l d i n g se co nd -d eg ree

ro bb ery whe re Bu tl er gr ab be d a wom an ’s pu rs e an d in jure d he r fin ge r). Lewi s do es

no t pr ov id e a “ real is t i c p ro ba bi li ty” th at Mi ss ou ri wil l ap pl y it s se co nd -d eg ree

ro bb ery st at ut e to co nd uc t fal li ng sh or t of vi ol en t fo rce

. S e e M o n cr ie ff e v. Hol de r , 13 3 S.Ct

. 16 78

, 16 85 (2 01 3) (q uo ti ng Gon za le s v. Due na s- Alva re z , 54 9 U.S. 18 3, 19 3
(2 00 7) ). B ecau se a “ th eo ret ic al po ss ib il it y ” is no t en ou gh , th e d is tri ct co ur t s ho ul d

be affi rm ed

. Se e id

.

Eve n if Lewi s co ul d be read to all ow fo r a s eco nd -d eg ree ro bb ery co nv ic ti on
ba se d on co nd uc t fal li n g s ho rt of vi ol en t fo rce, ou r de ci si on in Uni te d St at es v.

-1 2-Rob le ro -Rami re z req ui res th at we an al y ze st at e la w at th e ti me of th e co nv ic ti on

. 71 6

F.3 d 11 22

, 11 27 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). Doi ng s o l e a d s t o th e co nc lu si on th at Mi ss ou ri

se co nd -d eg ree r ob be ry

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

In Rob l e r o- Rami re

z , we rev ers ed a se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t fo r a cri m e of

vi ol en ce be cau se Ro bl ero -Ram ire z’s 20 0 6 N e br as ka co nv ic ti on fo r m an sl au gh te r

req ui red on ly un i n t e n ti on al co nd uc t, whi le ge ne ric fed eral m an sl au gh te r req ui red

in te nt io na l o r r e c kl es s co nd uc t. 71 6 F.3 d at 11 26 -2 7. Howev er, to reac h th is

co nc lu si on , we rel i e d o n th e fact th at whe n Ro bl ero -Ram ire z was co nv ic te d of

m an sl au gh te r in 20 06

, st at e la w di d no t req ui re p r o o f o f in te nt

. Id

. W hi le th e
Neb ras ka Su pr em e Co ur t la te r he ld th at m an sl au gh te r req u ire d in te nt

, “ [th at ]

in te rp ret at io n was no t Neb ras ka la w whe n Ro bl ero -Ram ire z was co nv ic te d in 20 06 .”

Id

. at 11 27 . Thu s, we re ve rs ed

.

Rob le ro -Rami re

z is im po rta nt be cau se Lewi s was de ci de d i n 2 01 5, wel l af te r
Bel l’s co nv ic ti on fo r se co nd -d eg ree ro bb ery in 20 01

. As no te d ab ov e, at th e ti m e of

Bel l’s 20 01 co nv ic ti on , Mi ss ou ri se co nd -d eg ree ro bb ery cas es req ui red fo rce cap ab le

of pr e v e n t i ng or ov erco m in g res is ta nc e. Se e al so Bro wn v. Sc hn uc k Mar ket s, In c. , 97 3 S.W .2d 53 0, 53 3 n.1 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 98 ) (“ So m e pu rs e sn at ch in gs in vo lv e

su ffi ci en t fo rce to co ns ti tu te ro bb ery in th e se co nd de gr ee; in ot he rs , th ere i s no
vi ol en ce.”) (q uo ti ng Bro wn v. Na t'l Su pe r Mar ket

s, In c. , 73 1 S.W .2d 29 1, 29 4 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 87 )). In fact

, Lewi s is th e on ly Mi ss ou ri cas e to in c l u d e l an gu ag e

im pl y in g m ere ph y si cal co nt act su ffi ces fo r ro bb ery in th e se co nd de gr ee. Se e 46 6

S.W .3d at 63 2. The refo re, at th e ti m e of Bel l’s co nv ic ti on , th ere was no real is ti c

pr ob ab il it y th at Mi ss ou ri ap pl ie d it s se co nd -d eg ree ro bb ery st at ut e to co nd uc t fal li ng
sh or t of vi ol en t fo rce. Eve n if Lewi s st oo d fo r th e pr op os it io n th e co ur t su gg es ts

, we
sh ou ld affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t ba se d on Mi ss ou ri la w at th e ti m e of Bel l’s co nv ic ti on

.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, I re sp ect fu ll y di ss en t.

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

-1 3-