# 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- 39 07

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

Derri ck Ang el o Har

pe r,

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 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: May 12, 2 01 7 Fil ed : Au gu st 23 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , COLLOTO N and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Derri c k Ang el o Harp er pl ead ed gu il ty to on e co un t of ba nk ro bb ery, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 2 1 1 3 ( a). At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at 1 Harp er was a care er of

fen de r un de r USSG § 4B 1.1 (a), an d th at he was s u b je c t to

The Hon or ab le Mi ch ael J. Dav is
, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Mi nn es ot a.en ha nc ed pu ni sh m en t un de r th at se ct io n of th e ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in es

. The

co ur t de te rm in ed th at Harp er was a care er of fen de r be cau se th e of

fen se of co nv ic ti on

was a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce,” an d hi s two pr io r co nv ic ti on s fo r ba nk ro bb ery in vi ol at io n of § 21 13 (a) were al so cri m es of vi ol en ce. The co ur t s e n t e n c e d Harp er to 18 8

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Harp er arg ue s on ap pe al th at th e di st ric t co ur t co mm i t t e d

pr oc ed ur al erro r in co m

pu ti ng th e ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge , be cau se hi s ba nk ro bb ery

co nv ic ti on s wer e n ot cri m es of v io le nc e.

A de fen da nt is a care er of fen de r if he is co nv ic te d of a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” an d ha s two pr io r co nv ic ti on s fo r cri m es of vi ol en ce. USSG § 4B 1.1 (a). The gu id el in es de fin e “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” in th e “ fo rce” cl au se to in cl ud e an 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.” USSG § 4B1 .2(a )(1 ). The gu id el in e al so en um erat es se ve ral of fen se s, in cl ud i n g “ro b b e r y,” th at co ns ti tu te a cri m e of vi ol en ce. Id

. § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2)

. The

go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at Harp er’s ba nk ro bb eri es qu al ify as cri m es of vi ol en ce un de r bo th th e “ fo rce” cla us e an d t he en um erat io n o f “ ro bb ery. ” 2

To dete rm ine w he th er Harp er’s co nv ic ti on s sa ti sf y th e “ fo rce” cl au se , we ap pl y th e “ cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch ,” an d con si de r on ly the st at ut or y ele m en ts of th e of

fen se

. Uni te d St at es v. Rob le ro -Rami re z , 71 6 F.3 d 11 22
, 11 25 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 )

. If a st at ut e

co ve rs m or e co nd uc t th an th e de fin it io n of “ cri m e o f v io le nc e,” an d “ co m pr is es

m ul ti pl e, al te rn at iv e ve rs i o n s o f th e cri m e,” th en we m ay ap pl y a “ m od ifi ed

cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch ” to de te rm in e whi ch al te rn at iv e was th e of fen se of co nv ic ti on

.

Effect iv e Aug us t 20 16 , t he Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on am en de d § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2) 2
to in cl ud e “ ro bb ery” as an en um erat ed cri me o f vi ol en ce; th e pr ev io us gu id el in e
en um erat ed “ r o b b e ry ” as a cri m e of vi ol en ce in th e co m m en ta ry

. USSG § 4B 1.2
, co m m en t. (n .1) (2 01 5)

. Harp er co m m it te d th e ba nk ro bb ery he re in Ja nu ary 20 16
, bu t

was se nt en ced in Sep te m be r 20 16
, so th e am en de d gu id el in e ap pl i e s un le ss it s us e
wou ld vi ol at e th e Ex Pos t Fac to Cl au s e o f t he Co ns ti tu ti on

. USSG § 1B 1.1 1( a), (b )(1 ). Harp er’s cu rren t p os it io n i s t ha t we s ho ul d a pp ly the am en de d g ui de li ne

.
-2

-Des ca mps v. Uni te d St at es , 13 3 S. Ct

. 22 76
, 22 83 -8 4 (2 01 3)

. The co ur t m ay “ co ns ul t

a li m it ed cl as s of jud ic ia l reco rd s to de te rm in e un de r whi ch al te rn at iv e th e de fen da nt

was co nv ic te d.” Uni te d S ta te s v. Hu ds on , 85 1 F .3d 80 7, 8 09 (8t h C ir. 2 01 7)

.

A pe rs on vi ol at es 18 U.S.C. § 21 13 ( a ) un de r th e fir st pa rag rap h of th e
pr ov is io n if he
, “ by fo rce an d vi ol en ce, or by in ti m id at io n, ta ke s

. . . fro m th e pe rs on

or pr es en ce of an ot he r, or ob ta in s

. . . by ex to rti on an y pr op ert y or m on ey or an y ot he r th in g of va lu e be lo ng in g to

. . . an y ba nk .” Sect io n 21 13 ( a ) c o n t ai ns a se co nd

pa rag rap h th at pr os cri be s “ en te r[i ng ] or at te m pt [in g] to en te r an y ba nk

. . . wit h in te nt
to co m m it in su ch ba nk

. . . an y fel on y affe ct in g su ch ba nk

. . . an d in vi ol at io n of an y
st at ut e o f th e Uni te d S ta te s, or an y la rcen y .” Harp er do es no t di sp ut e th at hi s th ree

co nv ic ti on s were un de r th e fir st p a rag rap h. His ch al le ng e to th e care er-o ffen de r de si gn at io n fo cu se s on th e fir st pa rag rap h o f § 2 1 1 3 (a) on ly, an d he im pl ic it ly

co nc ed es th at each pa rag rap h of § 21 13 (a) de fin e s a t l e a s t on e se pa rat e cri m e. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. McBr id e , 82 6 F .3d 29 3, 2 96 (6t h C ir. 2 01 6)

.

Harp er’s co nt en ti on is th at “ th e m os t in no cen t co nd uc t p e n a l iz ed un de r § 21 13 (a) is ‘int im id at io n,’” an d th at a vi ol at io n of § 21 13 (a) by in ti m id at io n do es no t ha ve , 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 Uni te d St at es v. W ri gh t , 95 7 F.2 d 52 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ), ho wev er, t hi s co ur t h el d t ha t ro bb ery by int im id at io n u nd er § 21 13 (a) cat eg or ic al ly in vo lv es th e th reat en ed us e of fo rce: “ In ti m id at io n m ean s th e th reat of fo rce.” Id

. at 52 1 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. W ri gh t th us co nt ro ls he re un le ss it ha s be en su pe rs ed ed by

an in te rv en in g d eci si on of t he Su pr em e Co ur t.

Harp er su gg es ts th at W

ri gh t was ab ro ga te d by Elo ni s v. Uni te d St at es , 13 5 S.
Ct

. 20 01 (2 01 5)
, bu t we se e no in co ns is te nc y be twee n th e two de ci si on s. Elo ni s he ld th at th e cri m e o f tr an sm it ti ng a co m m un ic at io n c on ta in in g a th reat un de r 18 U.S.C. § 87 5( c) req ui res pr oo f th at th e de fen da nt m ad e th e co m m un ic at io n wit h th e pu rp os e of is su in g a th reat , or wit h kn o wled ge th at th e co m m un ic at io n wil l be vi ewed as a

-3

-th reat , or , po ss ib ly, wit h reck le ss di sr eg ard fo r th e li ke li ho od th at th e co m m un ic at io n

wou ld be so vi ewed

. Id

. at 20 12 -1 3. Harp er reaso ns th at be cau se “ in ti m id at io n” in § 21 13 (a) do es no t req ui re pr oo f th at th e ro bb er in te nt io na ll y in ti m id at ed a vi ct im
, se e Uni te d S ta te s v. Yo ckel
, 32 0 F.3d 81 8, 8 24 (8t h C ir. 2 00 3) , rob be ry by int im id at io n do es no t ha ve as an el em en t th e th reat en ed us e of fo rce. In ot he r wor ds
, he se em s to

co nt en d, “ th reat en ed us e of fo rce” aft er El o n is req ui res a sp eci fic in te nt to is su e a th reat

.

Elo ni s di d no t an no un ce a un iv ers al de fin it io n of “ th reat ” th at al way s req ui res th e sa m e men s rea

. To the co nt rary, th e Co ur t ob se rv ed th at “ th reat ,” as co m m on ly de fin ed
, “ sp eak [s ] t o w h a t th e st at em en t co nv ey s— no t to th e m en ta l st at e of th e

au th or .” 13 5 S. Ct

. at 20 08

. Elo ni s he ld on ly th at a cert ai n cri m in al st at ut e req ui red

pr oo f of a pa rti cu la r men s re a

. The Co ur t di d no t red efi ne th e ph ras e “ th reat en ed us e of for ce” a s i t ap pe ars in th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es

.

Harp er al so m en ti on s fle e t i n gl y th e po ss ib il it y th at a pe rs on co ul d be in ti m id at ed wit ho ut a ro bb er th reat en in g to us e vi ol en t fo rce— th at is
, 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 v. Uni te d St at es , 55 9
U.S. 13 3, 14 0 (2 01 0) ; se e Uni te d St at es v. W il li ams , 69 0 F.3 d 10 56
, 10 67 -6 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). Thi s arg um en t fai ls be cau se ba nk ro bb ery by in ti m id at io n req ui res pr oo f th at
t h e v ic ti m “ reas on ab ly co ul d in fer a th reat of bo di ly ha rm ” fro m th e ro bb er’s act s

. Y oc kel
, 32 0 F.3 d at 82 4 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. A th reat of bo di ly ha rm req ui res a th reat
to us e vi o l en t fo rce be cau se “ it is im po ss ib le to cau se bo di ly in jury wit ho ut us in g fo rce ‘capab le of

’ pr od uc in g th at res ul t.” Uni te d St at es v. W in st on , 84 5 F.3 d 87 6, 87 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ca st le man , 13 4 S. Ct

. 14 05
, 14 16 -1 7 (2 01 4) (Sca li a, J., co nc ur rin g) ).

The ho ld in g of W

ri gh t th eref or e co nt ro ls : ba nk ro bb ery by in ti m id at io n un de r § 21 13 (a) is a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r th e fo rce cl au se , be cau se it in vo lv es a th reat en ed us e of fo rce. Se e al so All en v. Uni te d S ta te s , 83 6 F .3d 89 4, 89 4- 95 (8 th

-4

-Ci r. 20 16 ) (p er curi am ) (h ol di ng th at ba nk ro bb ery in vi ol at io n of § 21 13 (a) and (e)

is a “cri m e of vi ol en ce” un de r th e fo rce cl au se of 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( c)(3 )(A)). The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y ru le d th at Harp er qu al ifi ed as a care er of fen de r. W e ne ed no t ad dr es s whe th er Harp er al so qu al ifi es as a care er of fen de r be ca u s e § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2)

en um erat es “ ro bb ery” as a c r i me o f vi ol en ce. Cf

. Uni te d St at es v. Jen ki ns , 65 1 F. App ’x 92 0, 9 25 (11 th Cir . 20 16 ) (p er cu ria m ).

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-5

-