T he H onor abl e R i char d G
. St earns , U ni t ed S t at es D i s t r i ct J udge for t he U ni t ed St at es * D i s t r i ctC our tof M as s achus et t s , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 10- 4214

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. BY RO N RE CI N O S, A ppel l ant

_____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 1- 09- cr - 00885- 001 D istri ct Ju d g e: T h e H o n o rab le R o b ert B
. K u g ler
Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL
. A
. R
. 34. 1( a)

J anuary28, 2011 B e f o re : M c K E E , C hi ef

Judge , a n d S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge , a n d S T E A R N S , D is tr i ct Judge * ( Fi l ed: February1, 2011)
OP I NI ON
S T E A R N S , D is tr i ct

Judge. B yr on R eci nos i s a tw enty - t w o y earol d m i gr ant farm w or kerfr om H uehuet enango,R e c in o s b e liev e s th a t so m e o n e h a d p u t so m e th in g in h is b e e r th a t a f f e c te d h is 1 m e m o ry . H e p u rp o rts to h a v e n o p re se n t re c o llec tio n o f th e e v e n ts le a d in g u p to th e a c c id e n t. S e c tio n 2 L 1 .2 (b )( 1 )( A ) o f th e U n ite d S t a t e s S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s (U .S .S .G .) 2 p rov ides fo r a 1 6 -l ev el i n cre ase fo r a d ef en d an t w h o w as “ p rev io u slyd ep o rt ed
. . . af ter a c o n v ictio n f

o r a f e lo n yth a t is a c rim e o f v io len c e .” A g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt i s s p e c if ica lly d e s ig n a te d a “ c ri m e o f

v io le n c e ” b yU .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 (b )( 1 )( A )( ii)
.

2 G uat emal a, w ho i s r es i di ng i l l egal l yi n t he U ni t ed St at es . O n O ct ober1, 2006, aft erdr i nki ng beerw i t h s om e fr i ends ata bar , R eci nos dr ove hi s caroff the r oad i nt o a tr ee. T he 1 Sw edes bor o, N ew J er s eypol i ce of fi cer s w ho r es ponded t o t he a cc ident det erm i ned that R eci nos had been dr i vi ng w hi l e i nt oxi cat ed and t ook hi m i nt o cus t ody
. A tt he pol i ce s t at i on, R eci nos began a r gui ng w i t h t he off i cer s aft erbei ng ci t ed fordrunk dr i vi ng and unl i cens ed oper at i on. A s cuff

l e ens ued w i t h “s om e pushin g an d sh ovi ng betw een [ R eci nos ] and the pol i ce, ” af

t er w hi ch “one of the pol i ce of fi cer s al l eged thathi s arm [had be en] s cr at ched by [ R e c in o s’s ] h a n d .” A p p . at 1 6 (M a y2 , 2 0 0 7 P lea H r’g T r.). In a d d iti o n to th e tra f f ic offe ns es , R eci nos w as char ged w i t h t hi r d- degr ee “A ggr avat ed A s s aul t- L aw E nfor cement O ffi cer . ” H e pl ed gui l t y on M ay 2, 2007, and w as s ent ence d t o a tw o- y eart erm of pr obat i on.

O n A u g u st 1 9 , 2 0 0 7 , R e c in o s w a s a g a in a rre s te d a n d c h a rg e d w ith ro b b e ry , the f t, sim p le a ss a u lt, a n d d iso rd e rlyc o n d u c t. W h ile in c u sto d y , R e c in o s w a s inte rv iew e d b ya g e n ts of I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement ( I C E )
. H e adm i t t ed t o I C E t hathe had e nt er ed the countr yi l l egal l yi n 2004. I C E l odged a de t ai nero n S ept ember6, 2007. R eci nos w as 2 depor t ed fr om t he U ni t ed St at es t o G uat emal a on J anua ry 4, 2008, aft ert he s t at e cha r gesT he cha r ges w er e di s m i s s ed on N ovember26, 2007. 3 3 w er e di s m i s s ed. 3 R eci nos i l l egal l yr e- ent er ed t he U ni t ed S t at es agai n i n A pr i l of 2009. H e w as arr es t ed
o n Au g u s t1 6 , 2 0 0 9 , i n P e n n s g r o v e , Ne w J e r s e y , o n a p r o b a t i o n v i o l a t i o n wa r r a n t . On D ece m ber2, 2009, a fe der al gr and j ur y in t he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s eyr etur ned a one
- count i ndi ct m entchar gi ng R eci nos w i t h i l l egal r e- entr y aft er a pr i orconvi ct i on of an a ggr avat ed fel onyi n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. §§ 1326( a) and ( b) ( 2)
. O n M ar ch 9, 201 0 , R eci nos pl ed g u i l t y b e f

o r e J u d g e K u g l e r i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c tC o u r tf o rt h e D i s t r i c to f

N e w J e r s e y. A tt he hea r i ng, R eci nos ( t hr ough couns el ) r es erved the r i ghtt o chal l enge a ts ent enci ng t he
a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n ya lleg a tio n o f

th e in d ictm e n t. A P r e - S e n t e n c e Re p o r tp r e p a r e d b yt h e Un i t e d S t a t e s P r o b a t i o n Of f i c e ( US P O)
re c o m m e n d e d a to tal o f f e n se lev e l o f 2 1 , c o n sis tin g o f a b a se o f f e n se lev e l o f

8 p u rsu a n t to U
. S. S. G
. § 2L 1. 2( a) ; a 16- l evel enhanc ementbas ed on R eci nos’s u n law ful entr yaft er convi ct i on of a c r i m e of vi ol ence – U
. S. S. G
. § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) ; and a 3- l evel r educt i on for
ac ce p tanc e o f re s p o n s ib il ity– U
. S
. S
. G
. § 3 E 1
. 1 (a) an d (b). B ec au se h is C ri m inal H ist o ry C a te g o ry w a s II I, R e c in o s ’s a d v is o ry se n te n c in g g u id e lin e s ra n g e w a s 4 6 to 5 7 m o n th s . I n a l et t er t o J udge K ugl er dat ed A ugus t 2, 2010, R eci nos ar gued t hat hi s convi ct i on fort hi r d- degr ee “ A ggr avat ed A s s aul t– L aw E nfor cement– O ffi cer ” di d notfi tt he def i ni t i on of a “ cr i m e of vi ol ence ” bec aus e the gover nm ent coul d not pr ove t hat he had comm i t t ed the
cr i m e “purpos eful l y . ” C ons equent l y , R ecino s argued fort he 4- l evel enhanc ement t hat appl i es to a “convi ct i on foranyot her[nonenumer at ed] fel ony . ” See U .S .S .G . §In th e s ta te c o u rt p le a h e a ri n g , R e c in o s te s tif ie d a s f o llo w s . 4 Def

e n s e c o u n s e l : [O ] n O ct ober 1, w e r e y o u i n t h e B or ough of

Swe d e s b o r o a n d h a d y o u b e e n d r i v i n g a c a r ? R e c in o s : Y e s . C ouns el : O kay
. A nd ats om e poi nti n t i m e di d t he pol i ce

fr om Sw edes bor o come up t o y ou w hen y ourcar was d i s a b l e d o n t h e s i d e o f t h e r o a d ? R e c in o s : Y e s . C ouns el : A l l r i ght
. A nd t hen t he pol i ce offi cer w rote y ou

s o me t i c k e t s , i s t h a tc o rr e c t ? R e c in o s : C o rr e c t. C ouns el : A nd an ar g u m en t en su ed b etw een y ou and t he

p o l i c e , i s t h a tc o r r e c t ? R e c in o s : Y e s . C ouns el : A l l r i ght
. A nd t hen ther e w as s om e pus hi ng and

s hovi ng betw een y ou an d the pol i ce, i s t hat c o r r e c t ? R eci no s: Y es. C o u n sel: A n d o n e o f th e p o li ce o ff icers allege d that h is arm was s c r a t c h e d b yy o u rh a n d , i s t h a tc o r r e c t ? R eci no s: Y es. C ouns el : A nd t he pol i ce offi cer s w er e w ear i ng uni for m s at

t he t i m e? R eci no s: Y es. A p p . at 22 -23 ; 96 -97
. A t th e c o n clus ion o f th e c o ll o q u y , the s tat e c o u rtac ce p ted R ec ino s’s p le a o f g u ilty. 4 2 L 1 .2 (b )(1 )(D ). B yR e c in o s’s re c k o n in g , h e m e rited a to ta l o f f e n se lev e l o f

o n ly1 0 , w ith an advi s or yG ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange o f 1 0 t o 16 m ont hs
. T he governm entobj ect ed,
u r g i n g t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r tt o a d o p tt h e r e c o mm e n d a t i o n s o f t h e US P O. A t a s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g o n Se p t e mbe r2 3 , 2 0 1 0 , J u d g e Kug l e rf o c u s e d o n t he t r ans cr i ptof R eci nos ’ s s t at e courtgui l t ypl ea he ar i ng. N ot i ng hi s admi s s i on t hathe had be en 4 i nvol ved i n a “pus hi ng and s hovi ng” mat ch w i t h t he off i cer s and that one of the off i cer s hadA p p lica ti o n N o te 7 o b se rv e s th a t “[ t]h e re m a yb e c a se s in w h ich th e a p p lica b le 5 o ff en se lev el su b stan ti all yo v erstates o r un d erstates the seriou sn ess o f a p ri o r co n v ict ion
. In s uch a c as e, a depa r tur e maybe w arr ant ed. ” 5 s uffe r ed a s cr at ch t o hi s arm , J udge K ugl erfound thatt he assa ul tw as purpos eful , and not
r eckl es s as R eci nos cl ai m ed. J udge K ugl eradopt ed the 16- l evel enhanc ementand adj our ned the hear i ng t o al l ow t he part i es t o br i ef the i s s ue of w hethera dow nw ar d departur e w as
w arr ant ed pur s uantt o A ppl i cat i on N ot e 7 of U
. S. S. G
. § 2L 1. 2. 5 O n O ct ober6, 2010, R eci nos m oved forr eco n s i d e r a t i o n o f t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng and fora dow nw ar d departur e pur s uantt o A ppl i cat i on N ot e 7. I n hi s br i ef, R eci nos ar gued t hat“a c onvi ct i on undera s t at e s t atut e thatcan be s at i s fi ed bym er e r eckl es s nes s , w i l l not
s uppor tt he 16- l evel enhanc ementfora cr i m e of vi ol ence und er G u ideli ne Sect i on 2 L 1
. 2 (b)(l) (A ). ” A p p . at 12 7
. R ec ino s fu rth er a rgu ed that, co n tr aryto the D istri ct C o u rt ’s det er m i nat i on, “the t r ans cr i pt does N O T pr ove t he defenda nt ’ s m ent al s t at e att he t i m e, nor d o e s a n yo th e r a p p ro p ri a te d o c u m e n t . . . p ro v e o r a lle g e a ‘m o re th a n re c k le s s ’ m e n ta l s ta te .” Id
. atl 32- 133 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal )
. T he governm entoppos ed both t he mot i on for
re c o n s id e ra tio n a n d th e re q u e s t f o r a d o w n w a rd d e p a rt u re . O n O ct ober27, 2010, the D istr i ctC our tr econve ned the s ent enci ng hear i ng. J udge K ugl erdeni ed R eci nos ’ s m ot i on for r econs i der at i on, s t at i ng t hat he w as “s t i l l fi r m l yof the opi ni on t hatt hi s qual i fi es as an i nt ent i onal purpos eful as s aul t . ” Id
. at153. H e furt her
e x p lain e d th a t, “[ h ]e re th e re w a s an a rg u m e n t re su lti n g in p u sh in g a n d sh o v in g . R e su lted in t he al l egat i on bythe pol i ce offi cer i n t he pol i ce s t at i on t hatt her e w as a s cr at ch on hi s hand [s i c]
. T her e’ s no ques t i on i n m ym i nd t hat ’ s purpos eful conduct
. ” Id
. J u dge K ugl er t henR e c in o s arg u ed at t h e se n tenc ing h ea ri n g that u n d er Tayl orv. U ni t ed Stat es , 495 6 U .S
. 5 7 5 (19 9 0 ), and Shepar d v. U ni t ed Stat es , 544 U
. S. 13, 26 ( 2005) , t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt m ayl ook onl yt o t he cha r gi ng document , pl ea a gr eement , and plea col l oquyt o det er m i ne w hetheran as s aul tconvi ct i on consti tut es a “c r i m e of vi ol ence ” underU
. S. S. G
. § 2L 1. 2. J udge K ugl eragr eed. A pp. at107 ( Sept
. 23, 2010 M ot . H r ’ g T r . at18)
. “Ther efor e R eci nos c o n ten d s th a t w h ile th e D istric t C o u rt a p p lied th e a p p ro p ria te a n a lys is in th is c a se , it s ul t i m at e conc l us i on w as err oneous . ” A ppel l antB r . at18. 6 gr ant ed R eci nos a t w o- l evel dow nw ar d departur e bec aus e of hi s i nt oxi cat i on att he t i m e of the o ff en se. W ith a to ta l o ff en se lev el of

1 9 an d a C ri m inal H ist o ryC ateg o ryo f III, R eci nos ’ s advi s or yG ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange w as 37 t o 46 m ont hs
. A ft er cons i der i ng t he § 3 5 5 3 (a ) se n ten c in g f

a c to rs, J u d g e K u g ler se n ten c e d R e c in o s to 4 0 -m o n th s im p riso n m e n t. O n O c to b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 0 , R e c in o s f ile d a tim e ly n o tic e o f

a p p e a l. R e c in o s’s so le is su e o n a p p e a l is w h e th e r h is c o n v ictio n f o r “ A g g ra v a ted A ss a u lt – L aw E nfor cementO ffi cer ” cons t i tut es a cr i m e o f v iol ence forpurpos es of the 16- l evel
e n h a n c e me n t u n d e rU. S
. S
. G. § 2 L 1
. 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A)
. T h i s i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w o v e rwh i c h we 6

e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w . U ni t ed Stat es v. St i ns on , 5 9 2 F .3 d 4 6 0 , 4 6 2 n .1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ). T he N ew J er s eys t atut e t o w hi ch R eci nos pl ed gui l t y , N
. J
. St at . A nn. § 2C : 12- 1, p ro v id e s:
a. Si m pl e as s aul t . A per s on i s gui l t yof as s aul ti f he: (1 ) A ttem p ts t o c a u se o r pu rp o se ly , k n o w in g ly o r rec k les sly c a u se s b o d ily in ju ry to a n o th e r[ .] . . .

. . . b . A g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt. A p e rso n is g u iltyo f a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt i f

h e :

. . . ( 5) C om m i t s a si m pl e ass aul t as defi ned i n s ubs ect i on a. ( 1)
. . . of thi s s ect i on u p o n : (A ) a n ylaw e n f

o rc e m e n t o f

f ice r a c tin g in th e p e rf

o rm a n c e o f h is d u ties w h ile i n uni form orexhi bi t i ng evi dence of hi s author i t yorbeca us e of hi s s t atus asR eci nos co n tend s t hat , beca us e the A l cot es tadmi ni s t er ed att he pol i ce s t at i on 7 s how ed hi s bl ood al co h o l lev el t o be . 23 per cent , “i ti s i m pos s i bl e t o concl ude w i t h any cert ai nt y , and cl ear l ynotbya pr eponder anc e o f t he evi dence , t hat[he] act ed purpos el yor know i ngl y , r athert han ac ci dent al l yorr eck l e s s l y , w hen he c om m i t t ed the as s aul t . ” A ppel l ant B r . at19. A s t he bl ood al cohol t es tr es ul t s appea ronl yi n t he pol i ce r epor t s , w e do not c o n s id e r t h e m , see She

pa rd , 544 U
. S. at 22- 23, al t hough w e not e thatvol unt aryi nt oxi cat i on is n o t o rd in a ri ly a d e f

e n s e to a c ri m e o f

g e n e ra l in te n t. See, e. g. , P eopl e v. B oyer , 3 8 C a l. 4th 4 1 2 , 4 6 9 , 1 3 3 P
. 3 d 5 8 1 , 6 2 2 (20 0 6 ). 7 a la w e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ic e r[ .] . . . R eci nos ar gues t hatt he governm entfai l ed t o estab li s h t hathe had c om m i t t ed the offe ns e w i t h t he r equi s i t e m ens r ea. 7 B ec au se th e statute w as c h arg ed in the d isj u n cti v e, an inten t issue is raised
. In o rde r t o “q u ali fyas a crim e o f v iolen ce , the c ri m e a t i ssu e m u st pr e s en t ‘ a s er i ous pot ent i al r i s k of phy s i cal i nj ur y ’ and be one t h at ‘ t ypi cal l yi nvol ves purpos eful , vi ol entand aggr es s i ve conduc t . ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. Lee , 612 F. 3d 1 7 0 , 196 ( 3d C i r . 2010) , quot i ng B egay v . U ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 3 U. S. 1 3 7
- 144- 1 4 5 (2 0 0 8 ). B egay “expr es s l ydi s t i ngui s hed cr i m es in vol vi ng negl i gence or r eckl es s nes s fr om t hos e i nvol v ing v iol ence oraggr es s i on. T hus , fol l ow i ng B egay , a convi ct i on form er e r eckl es s nes s cannotcons t i tut e a c r i m e of vi ol ence . ” Id
. A p p e lla n t B r. a t 1 5
. A “ c ri m e o f v io le n c e ” a s d e f in e d in th e A p p lic a tio n N o te s to U .S .S
. G
. § 2 L 1 .2 i ncl udes aggr avat ed as s aul t“oranyoffe ns e under fe d era l s t at e, orl ocal l aw t hathas an el ement t he us e, at t empt ed us e, ort hr ea tene d u se of phy s i cal for ce a gai ns tt he per s on of
an ot her
. ” U
. S. S. G
. § 2L 1. 2 cmt . N
. 1( B ) ( i i i )
. A s t he j udgm ent i n R eci nos ’ s state co u rt convi ct i on d i d n o t s p e c i f y whe t h e r t h e c o u r t h a d f o u n d Re c i n o s g u i l t y o f p u rp o s e f u l or
r eckl es s conduct , t he convi ct i on i s notcat egor i cal ly a cri m e of vi ol ence . G i ven the
a m b i g u i t y, J u d g e K u g l e r a p p l i e d t h e m o d i f i e d c a t e g o r i c a l a p p r o a c h e n d o r s e d b y T aylor andT he fol l ow i ng excha nge betw een Reci nos ’ s couns el and the C our ti s t el l i ng. 8 D e f e n se c o u n se l: S o , le t m e s a y, I th in k th a t th is c a se is su f f icie n tly u n u su a l, th a t th e f

a c ts tak e it o u tsid e th e re a lm th a t th is isn ’t e v e n a typ ica l c a se w h e re a d e f e n d a n t h a s a g re e d to havi ng as s aul t ed t he offi cer . Y es , he t ouched hi m and a s cr at ch r es ul t ed buti n t hi s par t i cul ar– Co u r t : Ho w i s t h a tn o ta s s a u l tb yt o u c h i n g h i m? C o u n se l: It’s a sim p le a ss a u lt, u n in ten tio n a l o r re c k les s c o n d u c t.

I t happene d as par t of a pus hi ng and s hovi n g m atch b e tw e e n th e o f

f ic e r a n d th e d e f

e n d a n t. C our t : B uti n or derfort he def en d an tt o have s hoved a pol i ce offi cer , he musthave i nt ended t o s hove the pol i ce o f f ice r. H o w d o e s o n e sh o v e a p o lice o f f ice r n e g lig e n tly o rr e c k l e s s l y? C ouns el : A n d I t h ink the p u sh ing o cc u rred i nt ent i onal l y , but

perha p s i n r es pons e t o t he off i cer ’ s pus hi ng of the d e f e n d a n t. C our t : T hat s ti ll d o esn ’t m ake i tuni nt ent i onal
. T he fa ct t hat

so m e o n e m a yh a v e p u sh e d h im f irst, w h e n h e g o e s to p u s h th e o f

f ic e r b a c k , th a t’ s n o t u n in te n tio n a l. A pp. at98. 8 Sh epa rd (a p p ro p ri a te ly, as R e c in o s c o n c e d e s ) , a n d lo o k e d to th e g u ilty p le a tr a n s c ri p t. T h e to u c h s to n e o f

a “ c ri m e o f

v io le n c e ” i s t h e in te n t to u s e f o rc e . U ni t ed Stat es v. O t ero , 5 0 2 F .3 d 3 3 1 , 3 5 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (d istin g u ish in g in ten tio n a l f ro m re c k les s o r g ro ss ly negl i g e n tc o n d u c t )
. An a s s a u l ta n d b a t t e r yr e q u i r e s a g e n e r a l i n t e n tt o d o t h e a c tcaus i ng in ju ry . A lth o u g h th e N e w Je rse y sta tu te is c a p tio n e d “ A ss a u lt, ” th e o f f e n se d e sc rib e d c lea rly encompas s es comm on- l aw as s aul tand batt eryas i ti ncorpor at es t he el ementof a t ouchi ng
caus i ng bodi l yi nj ur y . T her e i s no r equi r ement under t he com m on l aw t hatt he ac t orhave a
s peci fi c i nt entt o vi ol at e the l aw ort o caus e anypar t i cul art ype of ha r m . H e nee d onl yi nt end t o comm i tt he ac tt h atr es ul t s i n t he uncons ent ed and ha r m ful t ouchi ng of another
. T he 8B l ackst on e’s t reat i se defines t he com m on -l aw cri m e (or t ort ) of batt eryas fol l ow s. 9 “B at t ery : w hi ch i s t he unl aw ful beat i ng of anot her
. T he l eas tt ouchi ng of another ’ s per s on w i l ful l y , ori n anger , i s a batt ery ; fort he l aw cannotdr aw t he l i ne betw een di ffe r entdegr ees of vi ol ence , and ther efor e t ot al l y pr ohi bi t s t he fi r s t and l ow es t s t age of i t ; everym an’ s per s on bei ng s acr ed, and no otherhavi ng a r i ght t o m eddl e w i th i t i n even t he s l i ght es t m anner . ” 3 W I L L I A M B L A C K ST O N E , C O M M E N T A R I E S O N T H E L A W S O F E N G L A N D *120.
W e ca n di s cern no di ffe r ence betw een the t erm “purpos el y , ” as i t i s us ed i n t he N ew 10 J e rs e ys ta tu te to d e s c ri b e th e re q u ir e d s ta te o f m in d , a n d th e m o re u s u a l te rm “ in te n tio n a l.” U nd er N ew Jer seyl aw , “pu rposel y ” i s defi ned as fol l ow s. A p e rso n a c ts p u rp o se lyw ith re sp e c t to th e n a tu re o f h is c o n d u c t o r a re su lt th e re o f if it i s h is c o n sc io u s o b

jec t to e n g a g e in c o n d u c t o f th a t n a tu re o r to caus e s uch a r es ul t . A per s on act s purpos el yw i t h r es pectt o at t endant ci r cumst ance s i f he i s aw ar e of the exi s t ence of s uch ci r cumst an ce s orhe b e lie v e s o r h o p e s th a t th e ye x is t. N
. J. S tat . A n n . § 2 C :2-2 b (1).
9 t ouchi ng need notbe i nher ent l y vi ol entt o cons t i tut e a ba t t ery . T he s l i ght es tus e of f or ce agai ns tanother ’ s per s on, i f off er ed w i t houtj us t i fi cat i on or excus e, cons t i tut es an i nt ent i onal b a t t e r y. 9 T he D istr i ctC our tcorr ect l yfound thatR eci nos i nt ent i onal l yengage d i n t he us e of for ce ( pus h ing an d sh o v i ng) agai ns ta per s on orper s ons w ho he knew t o be uni for m ed offi cer s and t hatbodi l yi nj ur yr es ul t ed. T hes e fi ndi ngs s at i s fi ed both t he purpos eful el ement of the N ew J er s eys t atut e and the r equi r ement s of U
. S. S. G
. § 2L 1. 2. 10 A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .