## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 35 52

__ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

*
Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

Lou is A. Soi le au , *

*
Defen da nt - App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 13 , 20 12
Fi le d: Aug us t 2 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re BYE, BEAM, an d S MITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _
BYE, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Lou is A. So il eau 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 ). At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t d e t e r m in ed 1

So il eau ha d fo ur pr io r co nv ic ti on s whi ch qu al ifi ed as vi ol en t fel on ie s, an d th us he

was su bjec t to th e en ha nc ed se nt en ci ng pr ov is io ns of th e Arm ed Care er Cri m in al Act
(ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e). So il eau ap pe al s th e en ha nc ed ACCA se nt en ce. W e

affi rm

.

The Hon or ab le Howar d F. Sach s, Uni te d 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.I

On Ja nu ary 3, 20 11

, Lou is So il eau an d hi s gi rl f r i en d st ol e fir earm s an d a
Ch ev ro le t Co rv et te fro m th e gi rlf rie nd ’s hu sb an d. The go ve rn m e n t f i l e d a th reeco un t in di ct m en t, ch arg in g So il eau wit h un la wfu l po ss es si on of a fir earm in vi ol at io n

of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). The pa rti es ve rb al ly ag reed to di sm is s co un ts on e an d two

. So il eau pl ead ed gu il ty to co un t t hr ee.

Pri or to se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t or de red a Pre s e n t e nc e In ve st ig at io n

R e p o r t (PSR ). The PSR co nc lu de d So il eau was an arm ed care er cri m in al un de r

se ct io n 4B 1.4 of th e Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (USSG) an d was th eref or e

su bjec t to an en ha nc ed se nt en ce un de r th e ACCA. PSR ¶ 33

. The PSR fu rth er

in di cat ed So il eau ha d fo ur pr io r co nv ic ti on s w h ic h co un te d as vi ol en t fel on ie s:

pa rag rap hs 46 an d 48 of th e PSR in di cat e So il eau bu rg la riz ed a bu il di ng , whi le

pa rag rap hs 44 an d 47 in di cat e h e ha d pl ead ed gu il ty to a “ si m pl e bu rg la ry .”

Acco rd in gl y , th e PSR de term in ed th e ad vi so ry Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s ran ge to be 18 8

to 23 5 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. PSR ¶ 93

. So il eau ob jecte d to th e PSR’s co nc lu si on

th e co nv ic ti on s de sc rib ed in pa rag rap hs 44 an d 47 qu al ifi e d a s vi ol en t fel on ie s.

Dur in g th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng on Octo be r 27

, 20 11

, th e go ve rn m en t of fere d an d, ov er

a pa rti al ob

jecti on by d efen se co un se l, th e co ur t ad m it te d co pi es of th e ch arg in g
do cu m en ts

, ch an ge of pl ea do cu m en ts

, pl ea ag reem en t, an d co m m it m en t pa pe rs , fo r

th e si m pl e bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s de sc rib ed in pa rag rap hs 44 an d 4 7

. The co ur t al so

to ok jud ic ia l no t i c e of se ct io n 14 :6 2 of th e Lou is ia na Rev is ed St at ut e, “ si m pl e
bu rg la ry .”

At th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , So il eau o b jecte d to th e PSR fin di ng th at he was

su bjec t to an en ha nc ed se nt en ce un de r § 92 4( e). So il eau arg ue d th e di st ric t co ur t was

res tri c t e d t o a pp lying a “ cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch ” in rev ie win g th e pr io r Lou is ia na

“ sim pl e bu rg la ry ” co nv ic ti on s to de te rm in e whe th er th ey qu al ifi ed as vi ol en t fe lon ie s,

an d th us it was li m it ed to a rev ie w of th e s t a t u t e an d th e fin al co m m it m en t pa pe rs

.

-2

-S o i l e a u arg ue d, th eref or e, th at th e di st ric t co ur t co ul d no t refe r to th e ch arg i n g
do cu m en ts

, pl ea ag reem en t, an d ch an ge of p l e a do cu m en ts

. The go ve rn m en t

res po nd ed th e co ur t co ul d lo ok t o t h e s e ad di ti on al do cu m en ts in th os e cas es whe re

th e st at ut e cri m in al iz ed co nd u c t whi ch bo th wou ld

, an d wou ld no t, qu al ify as a
vi ol en t fe lo ny. The di st ric t co ur t re qu es te d t he pa rti es bri ef t he is su e.

Ult im at el y , th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed it sh ou ld us e th e m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al

ap pr oa ch to de ci de whe th er So il eau ’s pr io r si m pl e bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s qu al ifi ed as
vi ol en t fel on ie s. Thu s , t h e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered th e ch arg in g do cu m en ts

, pl ea

ag reem en t, an d ch an ge of pl ea do cu m en t s

. F u r th er, th e co ur t fo un d th ere was

“ su ffi ci en t rel ia bi li ty in th e do cu m en ts be fo re th e co ur t an d th at t h e p r e s e n te nc e

rep or t is co rrec t as to th e effe ct of a pr io r cri m in al reco rd .” Sen t. Tr. II at 5.

Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d So il eau ha d co m m it te d fo ur pr io r vi ol en t

fel on ie s un de r § 92 4( e), an d he was th eref or e su bjec t to th e en ha nc ed se nt en ce as an

arm ed care er cri m in al un de r se ct io n 4B 1.4 (a) of th e Gui de li ne s. The di st ric t co ur t

s e n t e n c ed So il eau to 18 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. So il eau ap pe al s th e en ha nc e d

se nt en ce u nd er § 92 4( e).

II

“ W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at a de fen da nt ’s pr io r

co nv ic ti on co ns ti tu te s a vi ol e n t f e l o n y fo r pu rp os es of § 92 4( e).” Uni te d St at es v.

Bo az, 5 58 F.3d 80 0, 8 06 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

Sect io n 92 4( e) a p p l i e s w he n a de fen da nt ha s be en co nv ic te d as a fel on in

po ss es si on of a fir earm i n v i o l a t i on of § 92 2( g) an d ha s th ree pr io r vi ol en t fel on y

co nv ic ti on s. 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(1 ). A vi ol en t fel on y “ (i) 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; or (ii ) is bu rg la ry , ars on , or ex to rti on , in vo lv es us e of ex pl os iv es , or ot he rwis e in vo lv es

co nd uc t th at pr es en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ri s k o f p hysic al in jury to an ot he r.” Id

.

-3

-§ 92 4( e)(2 )(B)

. The st at ut e m an da te s a m in im u m s e n te nc e of fif

te en y ears

. Id

. § 92 4( e)(1 ). Alt ho ug h § 92 4( e) in cl ud es “b u r gl ary” as a vi ol en t fel on y , no t al l

bu rg la rie s qu al ify as vi ol en t fel on ie s: “ [A] pe rs on ha s be en co nv ic te d of bu rg la ry fo r

pu rp os es of a § 92 4( e) en ha nc em en t if he is co nv ic te d of an y cri m e, reg ard le ss of it s

ex act de fin it io n or la be l, ha vi ng th e ba si c el em en ts of un la wfu l or un pr iv il eg ed en try

in to

, or rem ai ni ng in

, a bu il di ng or st ru ct ur e , wit h in te nt to co m m it a cri m e.” Tay lo r

v. Un it ed Sta te s, 4 95 U.S. 57 5, 5 99 (19 90 ) (em ph as is ad de d)

.

A

So il eau ap pe al s th e di st ric t c o u rt' s ap pl ic at io n of th e § 92 4( e) se nt en ce

en ha nc em en t, arg ui ng th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to pr ov e he co m m it te d th ree qu al ifyin g
vi ol en t fe lo ni es

.

W he n de te rm in in g whe th er a st a te -la w of fen se qu al ifi es as a vi ol en t fel on y ,

co ur ts m us t always st art wit h t he for m al cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch an d l oo k “ on ly to t he

fact of co nv ic ti on an d th e st at ut or y de fin it io n of th e pr io r o f f e n s e

. ” I d. at 60 2.

Howev er, “ whe n t he st at ut e gi vi ng ris e to th e co nv ic ti on cri m in al iz es bo th co nd uc t

th at do es an d do es n o t qu al ify as a vi ol en t fel on y [,]” co ur ts ap pl y a m od ifi ed

cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch

. Uni te d St at es v. W eb st er, 6 3 6 F

. 3 d 91 6, 91 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 )
(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch

pe rm it s co ur ts to rev ie w “ th e ch arg in g do cu m en t, jury in st ru ct i o n s, pl ea ag reem en t

o r p l e a h e ari ng tra ns cri pt

, an d co m pa rab le jud ic ia l reco rd s

. . . .” Uni te d St at es v

. Sal ean , 58 3 F .3d 10 59 , 10 61 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

In th is cas e, aft er co ns id eri ng th e co m m it m en t pa pe rs co rres po nd in g to th e two

co nt es te d fel on ie s, th e di st ric t co ur t ex am in ed th e ch ar gi ng do cu m en ts

, pl ea

ag reem en t, and ch an ge of pl ea do cu m en ts fo r two reas on s. Fi rs t, the co ur t us ed th e
do cu m en ts to de te rm in e th e st at ut e to whi ch So il eau pl ead ed gu il ty—sec ti on 14 :6 2

of th e Lou is ia na Rev is ed St at ue s. Sec on d, b ecau se sec ti on 14 :6 2 crim in al iz es bo th

-4

-co nd uc t whic h do es an d do es no t qu al ify as a vi ol en t fel on y , th e co ur t pro ceed ed to

co ns id er t ho se same do cu m en ts when it ap pl ie d t he m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch

.

So il eau arg ue s th e co ur t im pr op erl y co ns id ered th e ch arg in g do cu m en ts

, pl ea

ag reem en t, an d ch a n g e o f pl ea do cu m en ts in bo th in st an ces

. He co nt en ds th at

be cau se th e co m

m it m en t pa pe rs la ck cr e d i b i l it y , th is fact al on e sh ou ld ha ve 2

pr ev en te d th e co ur t fro m us in g th e ad di tiona l docum en ts to de te rm in e to whi ch st at ut e

So il eau pl ead ed gu il ty, an d fu rth er sh ou ld ha ve pr ev en te d th e co ur t fro m ap pl y in g th e

m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch to cat eg or iz e h is pre vi ou s co nd uc t.

W e fir st reject So il eau ’s arg um en t th e co ur t was no t pe rm it te d to co ns id er
do cu m en ts be si de s th e co m m it m en t pa pe rs to de te rm in e th e st at ut e to whi ch So il eau pl ead ed gu il ty. In de te rm in in g of whi ch cri m e a pe rs on was pr ev io us ly co nv ic te d,

co ur ts are no t li m it ed to rev ie win g co m m it m en t do cu m en ts

. See W eb st er, 63 6 F.3 d

at 91 9 (s ta ti ng th at to de te rm in e whe th er th e de fen da nt was co nv ic te d of a pa rti cu la r
cri m e, th e co ur t m ay weig h “ th e cas e hi st or y do cu m en t

, an d an y ot he r av ai la bl e
rel ev an t ev id en ce”)

. Alt ho ug h th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s li m it ed th e type of ev id en ce

a co ur t m ay co ns id er to de te rmi n e t he ch arac te r of th e pr io r co nv ic ti on , “ [t]he

l i m it at io n do es no t ap pl y to an te ced en t fact ua l qu es ti on s su ch as whe th er th e
de fen da nt was co nv ic te d of a cri m e a t a l l

, or of whi ch cri m e th e de fen da nt was

co nv ic te d.” Id

. In st ead

, co ur ts m ay co ns id er ot he r rel ev an t do cu m en ts

, as th e di st ric t

co ur t d id in th is cas e.

W e reco gn iz e So il eau ’s co m m it m en t pa pe rs rel at in g to bo th co nt es te d fel on ie s

on ly in di cat ed he pl ead ed gu il ty to a “ si m pl e bu rg la ry .” And whi le se ct io n 14 :6 2 of

th e Lou is ia na Rev is ed St at ut es de fin es “ si m pl e bu rg la ry ,” ne it he r co m m it m en t pa pe r

So il eau st at es th e co m

m it m en t pa pe rs do no t refe ren ce a st at ut e nu m be r, d o 2

no t in c l ud e th e si gn at ur e of ei th er at to rn ey , d o no t in cl ud e So il eau ’s s ig na tu re, an d

on ly one of t he co m

m it m en t p ap ers in cl ud es th e d is tri ct co ur t ju dg e’s si gn at ur e.

-5

-l i s t e d th e st at ut e’s nu m be r. Bu t th e co ur t was pe rm it te d to co ns id er th e ch arg i n g
do cu m en ts

, an d th os e do cu m en ts co ll ab or at e th e fact So il eau p l e ad ed gu il ty to a
ch arg e of si m

p l e b u rg la ry br ou gh t un de r se ct io n 14 :6 2 of th e Lou is ia na Rev is ed

St at ut es

. Co un t on e of th e ch arg in g do cu m en t whi ch c o r res po nd s to th e si m pl e
bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on li st ed in pa rag rap h 44 of th e PSR st at es So il eau di d “co mm it

si m pl e bu rg la ry

. . . in vi ol at io n of R.S. 14 :6 2.” Si m il arl y , th e ch arg in g do cu m en t

rel at ed to th e si m

pl e bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on li s t e d in pa rag rap h 47 st at es So il eau

“ co m m it te d th e of

fen se of R.S. 14 :6 2 SIM PLE BURGLARY

. . . .” The refo re, ha vi ng

rev ie wed th e c o mm it m en t pa pe rs an d th e ch arg in g do cu m en ts

, we co nc lu de th e
di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y de te rm in ed th e st at ut e to whi ch So il e a u pl ead ed gu il ty was

se ct io n 1 4: 62 for bo th co nt es te d fe lo ni es

.

W e al so reject So il eau ’s arg um en t th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y a p p li ed th e

m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch to de te rm in e th e na tu re of h i s pr io r co nv ic ti on s.

So il eau do es no t di sp ut e th e fact se ct io n 14 :6 2 is ov eri nc lu si ve si nc e it cri m in al iz es
bo th co nd uc t whi ch do es an d do es no t q u a l i f y as a vi ol en t fel on y un de r § 92 4( e):

se ct io n 14 :6 2 of t h e Lou is ia na Rev is ed St at ut es de fin es si m pl e bu rg la ry as “ th e

un au th or iz ed en te rin g of an y d w e l l i n g, ve hi cl e, wate rcra ft, or ot he r st ru ct ur e,

m ov eab le or im m ov ab le

, or an y cem et ery, wit h th e in te nt to co m m it a fel on y or an y
th eft th erei n[ .] ” Thu s, th e co ur t pr op erl y lo ok ed to th e ad di ti on al jud ic ia l do cu m en ts

whe n it weig he d whe th er So il eau ’s act io ns gi vi ng ris e to th e two co nt es te d

co nv ic ti on s fel l wit hi n th e p a r t o f t h e st at ut e th at cri m in al iz es en try i nt o a bu il di ng

or st ru ct ur e. See Uni te d St at es v. Dem in t, 74 F.3 d 87 6, 87 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (aff irming

ap pl ic at io n of th e m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch st at in g “ [t]he Lou is ia na st at ut e

. . . de fin es bu rg la ry m or e br oa dl y th an th e ge ne ric de fin it i o n in Tay lo r, be cau se th e

st at ut e in cl ud es ve hi cl es an d wat ercr aft ”).

So il eau fu rth er arg ue s th at ev en if th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y de ci de d to us e th e

m od ifi ed cat eg o r i c a l ap pr oa ch

, it co ul d no t rel y so le ly on th e ch an ge of pl ea
do cu m en ts an d cha rg in g do cu m en ts whe n con du ct in g i ts an al y si s. Ins te ad

, So il eau

-6

-c o n t e n d s th e go ve rn m en t sh ou ld ha ve pr ov id ed th e di st ric t co ur t wit h th e pl ea

ag reem en ts , th e jury ins tru ct io ns , or o th er co ur t re co rd s.

W he n us in g th e m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch to a n al y ze whe th er a pr io r

co nv ic ti on qu al ifi es as a vi ol en t fel on y , c ou rts can rev ie w th e “ ch arg in g d oc um en t,

th e te rm s of a pl ea ag reem en t or tra ns cri pt of co ll oq uy be twee n jud ge an d de fen da nt

in whi ch th e fac tu al ba si s fo r th e pl ea was co nf irmed by the de fen da nt , or . . . so m e

co m pa rab le jud ic ia l reco rd of th is in fo rm at io n.” Sh ep ard v. Uni te d St at es , 54 4 U.S.

13

, 26 (2 00 5)

. And

, al th ou gh co ur ts m ay co ns id er an y of th es e do cu m en ts

, th ey ne ed

no t rev ie w al l of th em

. Uni te d St at es v. Vas qu ez-Ga rci a, 44 9 F.3 d 87 0, 87 3 (8 th Ci r.

20 06 ) (s ta ti ng “ whe re a ch arg in g do cu m en t al read y na rro ws th e ov eri nc lu si ve st at ut e,
Sh ep ard do es no t req ui re th e go ve rn m en t to pr od uc e

. . . ad di ti on al do cu m en ta ti on .”).

In th is cas e, th e go ve rn m en t pr ov id ed th e di st ric t co ur t wit h th e ch arg in g
do cu m en t, ch an ge of pl ea do cu m en t, an d th e pl ea ag reem en t pe rta in in g to th e si m pl e
bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on li st ed in pa rag rap h 44 of th e PSR

, a s w e l l a s th e ch arg in g
do cu m en t an d ch an ge of pl ea do cu m en t pe rta in in g to th e si m pl e bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on

li st e d i n pa rag rap h 47 of th e PSR. The di st ric t co ur t rev ie wed th e do cu m en ts an d

de te rm in ed th ey co nt ai ne d su ffi ci en t in fo rmati on to sh ow So il eau ’s pr io r si m pl e
bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s qu al ifi ed as vi ol en t fel on ie s. The refo re, th e co ur t di d no t ne ed

to an al y ze al l of th e do cu m en ts pe rm is si bl e un de r th e m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch

. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y ap pl ie d th e m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch in

lo ok in g to th e ch arg in g do cu m en ts

, pl ea agre em en t, and ch an ge of pl ea do cu m en ts

.

B

So il eau al te rn at iv el y arg ue s th at ev en if th e di st ric t co rrec tl y us ed th e m od ifi ed

cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch

, th e ch arg in g do cu m en ts di d no t co nt ai n su ffi ci en t in fo rm at io n

to sh ow t he co nv ic ti on s q ua li fy as v io le nt fel on ie s.

-7

-Th e g o v ern m en t is req ui red to pr ov e th e de fen da nt pl ead ed gu il ty to a

qu al ifyin g ge ne ric bu rg la ry of fen se u n d e r th e ACCA by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e

ev id en ce, us in g pe rm is si b l e co ur t do cu m en ts un de r th e m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al

ap pr oa ch

. See Uni te d St at es v. Fo rres t, 61 1 F.3 d 90 8, 91 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (s ta t i ng

“ th e is su e is whe th er th e go ve rn m en t pr ov ed by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at [th e de fen da nt ] pl ead ed gu il ty to a qu al ifyin g bu rg la ry of fen se wit h jud ic ia l reco rd s

pe rm it te d u nd er t he m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch

. . . .”).

Co un t on e of th e ch arg in g do cu m en t, whi ch pe rta in s t o t h e si m pl e bu rg la ry

co nv ic ti on li st ed in pa rag r ap h 44 of th e PSR, si m pl y al le ge s So il eau “ di d wil lfu ll y

an d un la wfu ll y co m

m it si m pl e bu rg la ry of a bu il di ng an d/ o r be lo ng in g to Ja sp er Dup re, in vi ol at io n of R.S. 14 :6 2.” So il eau arg ue s th at acco rd in g to th is la ng ua ge he

c o u ld ha ve co m

m it te d a bu rg la ry of a “ be lo ng in g,” su ch as a ve hi cl e or wate rcra ft,

whi ch do es no t qu al ify as a vi ol en t fel on y

. Se e Ta y lo r, 49 5 U.S. at 59 9 (h ol di ng a
bu rg la ry m

us t be of a bu il di ng or st ru ct ur e in or de r to qu al ify as a vi ol en t fel on y fo r ACCA p ur

po se s)

.

W hi le we ack no wled ge So il eau rai se s a va l i d po in t, we ne ed no t de te rm in e
whe th er th e go ve rn m en t su ffi ci en tl y pr ov ed th e act s ch arg ed in pa rag rap h 44 qu al ify

as a vi ol en t fel on y

. So il eau do es no t co nt es t th at th e PSR de sc rib es two pr io r vi ol en t

fel on y co nv ic ti on s. The refo re, we ne ed on ly fin d th at o n e o f th e co nt es te d si m pl e
bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s qu al ifi es as a vi ol en t fel on y fo r So il eau to ha ve be en co nv ic te d

of th ree vi ol en t fel on ie s, th ereb y su bjec ti ng hi m

to an en ha nc ed se nt en ce un de r th e

ACCA.

Co un t on e of th e ch arg in g do cu m en t rel ev an t to th e si m pl e bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on

li st ed in pa rag rap h 47 of th e P S R a l l eg es : “ On or ab ou t Ju ly 06

, 20 06

, . . . Lou is

So il eau

. . . c o mm i t t e d t he of fen se of R.S. 14 :6 2 SIM PLE BURGLARY, by th e

un au th or iz ed en t r y of th e pr op ert y of an ot he r lo cat ed at Town & Co un try Gro cery

St or e

. . . .” The sa m e ch arg in g do cu m en t li st s two ot he r co un ts whi ch al so oc cu rred

-8

-on Ju ly 06

, 20 0 6 : c o u n t two al le ge s So il eau “ co m m it te d th e of

fen se of R.S. 14 :6 7

THEFT, by co m

m it ti ng th eft of ci ga ret te s, ch an ge an d li qu or of a va lu e ov er $5 00 .”;

an d co un t th ree st at es S o il eau “ co m m it te d th e of

fen se of R.S. 14 :5 6 SIM PLE

CRI M I N A L DAMAGE TO PROPERTY to cen tra l un it an d cas h reg is te r wit h th e
da m ag e am ou nt in g ov er $5 00 .” So il eau arg ue s th at acco rd in g to th e in fo rm at io n

li st ed in th e ch arg in g do cu m en t, he co ul d ha ve co m m it te d bu rg la ry of a sa le s te nt or

ve hi cl e pa rk ed on th e pr op ert y of th e Town an d Co un try St or e, rat he r th an bu rg la ry

of a bu il di ng or s tru ct ur e.

A co ur t sh ou ld lo ok to th e ch arg in g do cu m en t as a who le in or de r to de te rm in e
whe th er a de fen da nt was c h a r g e d wit h a qu al ifyin g bu rg la ry

. See Uni te d St at es v.

Ei nf el dt

, 13 8 F.3 d 37 3, 37 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (s ta ti ng th e “ ch arg in g do cu men t a s a
who le sh ows th at th e de fen da nt was ch arg ed o n l y w i t h a bu rg la ry of a bu il di ng ”)
(in te r n a l q uo ta ti on m ark s an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The refo re, in th is cas e, co un t on e
sh ou ld be co ns id ered in co nju nc ti on wit h co un ts two an d th ree to de te rm in e whe th er

So il eau was ch arg ed wit h bu rg la ry of a bu il di ng or st ru ct ur e. The ev id en ce in di cat in g

So il eau en te red pr op ert y at th e Town & Co un try Gro cery st or e, da m ag ed th e “ cen tra l

un it an d cas h reg is te r,” an d st ol e “ ci ga ret te s, ch an ge an d li qu or ,” is su ffi ci en t to pr ov e by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce th at So il eau di d in fact bu rg la riz e a b ui ld in g o r

st ru ct ur e. So il eau co nt en ds th at ev en co ns id eri ng th os e th ree fact s to ge th er, it is st il l

po ss ib le he bu rg la riz ed a sa le s te nt

, rat he r th an a bu il di ng

. Bu t pr ep on de ran ce of th e

ev id en ce si m

pl y m ean s it is m or e li ke ly th an no t th at an ev en t oc cu rred ; th e st an da rd

do es no t req ui re th e go ve rn m en t to el im in at e ev ery pl au si bl e sc en ari o. In lo ok in g to

th e ch arg in g d oc um en t as a who le , we c on cl ud e th e cri m e li st ed in pa rag rap h 4 7 o f

th e PSR co un ts as a vi ol en t fe lo ny.

-9

-Acco rd in gl y , bec au se So il eau co m m it te d a t le as t th ree pr io r vi ol en t fel on ie s,

th e d is tri ct co ur t p ro pe rly sen te nc ed hi m as a n a rm ed care er cr im in al

. 3

III

The jud gm en t an d s en te nc e are affi rm ed

.

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

W e ha ve co ns id ered ap pe ll an t’s rem ai ni ng arg um en ts an d con cl ud e th ey are 3

wit ho ut m eri t.

-1 0-