# 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- 18 74

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

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.

Arth ur Lee St ark s, J 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 Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 12 , 20 16

Fi le d: Decem

be r 28 , 20 16

[Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and SMITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Arth ur Lee St ark s, Jr

. 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

. § 9 2 2 ( g) (1 ). He ap pe al s fro m hi s se nt en ce of 80 m on th s’im

pr is on m en t, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou sl y cal cu la te d hi s of fen se le ve l 1

un de r § 2K 2.1 (a)( 4) (A) of th e Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l (U.S.S.G.

or Gui de li ne s) be cau se hi s un de rlyin g Ark an sa s co nv ic ti on fo r do m es ti c ba tt eri ng in

th e th ird de gr ee was no t a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” wit hi n th e m ean in g of th at se ct io n. He

al so arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t

co ns id ered an im

pr op er fact or in va ry in g up ward fro m th e Gu i d e l i n e s r an ge

. W e

affi rm

.

The pr es en te nc e rep or t (PSR ) cal cu la te d St ark s’s ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng ran ge

un de r th e 20 14 ve rs io n of th e Gui de li ne s. The PSR de te rm in ed th at St ark s ha d a to ta l

cri m in al hi st or y

sco re o f 10 an d th us th at hi s cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y was V. The

P S R a l s o d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l w a s 2 0 u n d e r

U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(a )(4 )(A), be cau se St ark s co m m itt ed the fe lon -i n- poss es sion of fen se

aft er su st ai ni ng a fel on y co nv ic ti on fo r a cri m e of vi ol en ce, na m el y

, a 20 08 Ark an sa s

co nv ic ti on fo r do m es ti c ba tt eri ng in th e th ird de gr ee, se co nd of fen se

, in vi ol at io n of

Ark an sa s Co de Ann ot at ed § 5- 26 -3 05

. The PSR reco m m en de d a 2- le ve l red uc ti on

fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y

. The di st ric t co ur t ad op te d th e PSR an d gr an te d a 3-

le ve l red uc ti on fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y

. Bas ed on a to ta l of fen se le ve l of 17

an d a cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y of V, th e d i s t r i ct co ur t cal cu la te d an ad vi so ry

se nt en ci ng ran ge of 46 to 57 m on th s. The di st ric t co ur t v a r i e d up ward fro m th e

Gui de li ne s ran ge an d im po se d a se nt en ce of 80 m on th s, gi vi ng th e fo l l o w i n g

ex pl an at io n:

The jus ti fic at io n fo r m

y up ward va ria nc e fro m th e gu id el in e ran ge is Mr.

St ark s’ co ns is te nt an d vi ol en t cri m in al hi st or y

. It is to pr ot ect th e pu bl ic

fro m th e si tu at io n th at no w Mr. St ark s i s in po ss es si on of a fir earm

whi c h

, i n t he Co ur t’s op in io n, wil l es cal at e th at fu tu re da ng er to th e

pu bl ic as well as to hi s fam il y

. It’s al so t o ad dr es s hi s ne ed s fo r hi s

al co ho l p ro bl em s an d p erh ap s h is m en ta l h eal th ne ed s.

The Hon or a b l e J a mes M. Mo od y

, Jr

., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-S t ark s fir st arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pr oc ed ur al erro r i n

cal cu la ti ng hi s Gui de li ne s ran ge be cau se Ark an sa s Co de Ann ot at ed § 5- 26 -3 05 do es

no t qu al ify as a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(a )(4 )(A). “ W e rev ie w de

no vo a di st ric t co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n an d ap pl ic at io n of th e gu id el in es .” Uni te d St at es

v. Ri ce, 8 13 F.3d 70 4, 7 05 (8t h C ir. 2 01 6) . As rel ev an t h ere, t he Gui de li ne s d efi ne

a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” as an of fen se th at is pu ni sh ab le by mo r e t ha n on e y ear’s

im pr is on m en t an d th at “ ha s as an el em en t t h 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.” U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2 (a). “ To 2

de te rm in e whe th er a pr io r co nv ic ti on was fo r a cri m e of vi ol e n ce, ‘w e ap pl y a

c a te go ric al ap pr oa ch

, lo ok in g to th e el em en ts of th e of fen se as de fin ed in th e

. . .

st at ut e of co nv ic t i o n rat he r th an to th e fact s un de rlyin g th e de fen da nt ’s pr io r

co nv ic ti on .’ ” Ri ce, 813 F.3 d at 70 5 (qu ot in g Uni te d S ta te s v . Dawn, 6 85 F.3 d 79 0,

79 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )). “ If th e st at ut e of co nv ic ti on is di vi si bl e in th at it en co m pa ss es

m ul ti pl e cri m es

, so m e of whi ch are cri m es of vi ol en ce an d so m e of whi ch are no t, we

ap pl y a m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch to ‘loo k at th e ch arg in g do cu m en t, pl ea

co ll oq uy, an d co m

pa rab le jud ic ia l reco rd s’ fo r de te rm in in g whi ch pa rt of th e st at ut e

th e de fen da nt vi ol at ed .” Id

. (q uo ti ng Dawn, 68 5 F.3 d at 79 4- 95 ). “ W e t h e n

de te rm in e whe th er a v io la ti on of t ha t s ta tu to ry su bp art is a cri m e o f vi ol en ce.” Id

.

The di st ric t co u r t d i d no t err in de te rm in in g th at St ark s’s 20 08 th ird -d eg ree

do m es ti c ba tt eri ng co nv ic ti on was fo r a cri m e of vi ol en ce. At th e ti m e of co nv ic ti on

,

Ark an sa s C od e Ann ot at ed § 5 -2 6- 30 5 p ro vi de d:

(a) A p ers on co m

m it s d om es ti c b at te rin g i n t he th ird de gr ee i f:

Thi s de fin it io n is th e “ fo r c e cl au se ” of th e “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” de fin it io n. 2

U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2 (a) al so de fin e s as a cri m e of vi ol en ce an y of fen se pu ni sh ab le by

m or e th an on e y ear’s im

pr is on m en t th at ei th er qu al ifi es as on e of cert ai n en um erat ed

of fen se s or fal ls wit hi n th e “ res id ua l cl au se .” Bec au s e w e co nc lu de th at th e

un de rlyin g Ark an sa s co nv ic ti on in th is cas e fal ls wit hi n th e fo rce clau se , we do no t

co ns id er t he res id ua l cl au se

.

-3

-(1 ) W it h t h e p u r p os e of cau si ng ph y si cal in jury to a fam il y or

ho us eh ol d m em

be r, th e pe rs on cau se s ph y si cal in jury to a fam il y

or ho us eh ol d m em

be r;

(2 ) The pe rs on reck le ss ly cau se s ph y si ca l i n ju ry to a fam il y or

ho us eh ol d m em

be r;

(3 ) The pe rs on ne gl ig en tl y cau se s ph y si cal in jury t o a fam il y or

ho us eh ol d m em

be r by m ean s o f a d ead ly w eap on ; o r

(4 ) The pe rs on pu rp os el y cau se s st up or

, u n co ns ci ou sn es s, or

ph y si cal or m en ta l im

pa irment or in

jury to a fam il y or ho us eh ol d

m em be r by a d mi n i s te rin g to th e fam il y or ho us eh ol d m em be r,

wit ho ut th e fam il y or ho us eh ol d memb er’s co ns en t, an y dr ug or

ot he r su bs ta nc e.

Bec au se th is st at ut e i s di vi si bl e we ap pl y th e m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch

. See

Uni te d St at es v. Easo n, 82 9 F.3 d 63 3, 64 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (d et erm in in g th at Ark an sa s

Co de Ann ot at ed § 5 -2 6- 30 5 i s d iv is ib le in a cas e u nd er the Arm ed Care er Cr im in al

Act)

. The fel on y in fo rm at io n fro m St ark s’s un de rlyin g co nv ic ti on al le ge d th at St ark s

“ wit h th e pu rp os e o f cau si ng ph y si cal in jury to a fam il y or ho us eh ol d m em be r, di d

cau se ph y si cal in

jury to [th e vi ct im ], a fam il y or ho us eh ol d m em be r.” Rev ie win g th e

fel on y in fo rm at io n at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng

, th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at “ Mr.

St ark s was be in g ch arg ed un de r[] Ark an sa s Co de Ann ot at ed 5- 26 -3 05

, an d it ap pe ars

f u r t h er fro m th e in fo rm at io n th at it was un de r pa rag rap h (a)( 1) .” The reco r d t h u s

es ta bl is he s th at St ark s w as co nv ic te d of vi ol at in g su bs ect io n (a)( 1) of § 5- 26 -3 05

.

The on ly r e mai ni ng qu es ti on , t he n, is whe th er su bs ect io n (a)( 1) “ ha s as an el em en t

t h e u s e

, a tt em

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 o f

an ot he r.”

Our pr eced en t es ta bl is he s th at su bs ect io n (a)( 1) fal ls wit hi n th e fo rce cl au se of

U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2 (a). In Ri ce, w e h e l d t h a t a su bs ect io n of th e Ark an sa s se co nd

de gr ee ba tt ery st at ut e was a cri m e of vi ol en ce. Tha t su bs ect io n pr ov id ed th at a pe rs on

-4

-co m

m it s se co nd -d eg ree ba tt ery i f t h e pe rs on “ in te nt io na ll y or kn owi ng ly, wit ho ut

le ga l jus ti fic at io n, cau se s ph y si cal in jury to on e he kn ows to be ” a m em be r of cert ai n

en um erat ed gr ou ps

. Ri ce, 81 3 F.3 d at 70 5. W e reas on ed t h a t t h e de fen da nt ’s

co nv ic ti on un de r th is st at ut e “ in cl ud es th e us e of vi ol en t fo rce as an ele m en t ‘si nc e

it is im po ss ib le to cau se bo di ly in jury wit ho ut us in g fo rce “ cap ab le of ” pr od uc in g th at

res ul t. ’” Id

. at 70 6 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Cas tl em an

, 13 4 S. Ct

. 14 05

, 14 16 -1 7

(2 01 4) (Sca li a, J., co nc ur rin g) ). And in Uni te d St at es v. Vin to n, w e he ld th at a

su bs ect io n of a Mi ss ou ri as sa ul t st at ut e “ ha [d ] 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 c al fo rce ag ai ns t th e pe rs on of an ot he r” be cau se th e

su bs ect io n co ve red cas es in whi ch a pe rs on “ [a]tt em pt s to cau se or kn owi ng ly cau se s

ph y si cal in

jury to an ot he r pe rs on by m ean s of a de ad ly weap on or da ng ero us

in st ru m en t.” 63 1 F.3 d 47 6, 48 5- 86 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). St ark s arg ue s th at ph y si cal fo rce

is no t an el em en t of § 5- 26 -3 05 (a)( 1) be ca u s e i t is po ss ib le to cau se bo di ly in jury

in te nt io na ll y wit ho ut us in g ph y si cal fo rce, an d th at ot he r ci rcu it co ur ts th at ha ve

co ns id ered th e is su e ha ve co me t o t h a t co nc lu si on

. Bu t we co ns id ered th es e

arg um en ts in Ri ce, an d st il l he ld th at th e of fen se in qu es ti on was a cri m e of vi ol en ce.

See 8 13 F.3 d at 70 6. Acco rd in gl y , un de r ou r pr eced en t, Ark an sa s C od e Ann ot at ed

§ 5- 26 -3 05 (a)( 1) “ 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” an d is th us a cri m e of vi o l e n c e u n d e r

U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .2(a ).

W e se e no reas on to de pa rt f ro m ou r pr eced en t in th is cas e. “ Alt ho ug h on e

pa ne l of th is co ur t or di na ril y can no t ov erru le an ot he r pa ne l, th is ru le do es no t ap pl y

whe n th e earl ie r pa ne l de ci si on i s c a st in to do ub t by a de ci si on of th e Su pr em e

Co ur t.” Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 53 7 F.3 d 9 6 9

, 9 7 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (em ph as is

rem ov ed ) ( qu ot in g Pat te rs on v. Ten et Heal th care

, In c., 11 3 F.3 d 83 2, 83 8 (8 th Ci r.

19 97 )). St ark s co nt en ds th at Mat hi s v. Uni te d St at es

, 13 6 S. Ct

. 2 2 4 3 ( 2 0 16 ),

su pp or ts hi s arg um en t th at Ark an sa s’s do m es ti c ba tt eri ng st at ut e is br oa de r th an th e

“ cri m e of vi ol en ce” de fin it io n se t fo rth in U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2 (a). In Mat hi s, th e

Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at a de fen da n t ’s pr io r co nv ic ti on s un de r an Io wa bu rg la ry

-5

-st at ut e were no t “ cri m es of vi ol en ce” un de r th e Arm ed Care er Cri m in al Act be cau se

th e Io wa st at ut e was br oa de r th an th e ge ne ric of fen se of bu rg la ry in th e Arm ed Care er

Cri m in al Act. The Co ur t em ph as iz ed th at in de te rm in in g whe th er a pr io r co nv ic ti on

was fo r a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce,” co ur ts m us t lo ok to th e el em en ts of th e of fen se

, no t th e

fact ua l m ean s by whi ch an of fen se m ay be co m

m it te d, ev en if th e st at ut e of

co nv ic ti on li st s al te rn at iv e fact ua l m ean s. The Io wa bu rg la ry st at ut e reac he d “ an y

bu il di ng

, st ru ct ur e, [o r] la nd

, wate r, or ai r ve hi cl e,” bu t th e ge ne ric of fen se of

bu rg la ry co ve rs on ly a “ bu il di ng or ot he r st ru ct ur e.” Id

. at 22 50 (em ph as is rem ov ed ).

The Co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e lo cat io ns li st ed in th e Io wa st at ut e “ are no t al te rn at iv e

el em en ts

, go in g to ward th e crea ti on of se pa rat e cri m es ,” bu t in st ead “ th ey la y ou t

al te rn at iv e way s o f sa ti sf y in g a si ng le lo cat io na l el em en t.” Id

. The Co ur t bas ed it s

co nc lu si on la rg el y on a de ci si on of th e Io wa Su pr em e Co ur t, bu t it al so in st ru ct ed th at

“ if st at e la w fai ls to pr ov id e cl ear an swe rs ,” co ur ts m ay lo ok to th e reco rd m at eri al s,

su ch as “ in di c t men t s

, jury in st ru ct io ns

, pl ea co ll oq ui es an d pl ea ag reem en ts ” to

de te rm in e whe th er the st at ut e de sc rib es se pa rat e cri m es or m erel y di ffer en t way s of

co m m it ti ng th e sa m e cri m e. Id . at 2 25 6- 57 , 22 57 n.7

.

Mat hi s do es no t affe ct th is cas e, be cau se § 5

- 26 -3 05 se ts fo rth “ al te rn at iv e

el em en ts ,” no t m erel y “ al te rn at iv e way s of sa ti sf y in g a si ng le [] el em en t

. ” I d

. at

2 25 0. The st at ut e cl earl y de li ne at es al te rn at iv e el em en ts

, an d th e jud ic ia l r e c o r d

es ta bl is he s th at St ark s was ch arg ed un de r su bs ect io n (a)( 1)

. Acco rd in gl y

, ap pl ic ation

of th e mo di fie d cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch was pr op er, an d, ap pl y in g th at ap pr oa ch as

di sc us se d a bo ve , a vi ol at io n o f su bs ect io n (a )(1 ) co ns ti tu te s a c rime of v io le nc e.

St ark s al so arg ue s th at Voi si ne v

. U n it ed St at es

, 13 6 S. Ct

. 22 72 (2 01 6)

,

su pp or ts hi s po si ti on th at Ark an sa s Co de Ann ot at ed § 5- 26 -3 05 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.” St ark s po in ts to an ex am pl e us e d b y th e Co ur t, in whi ch it st at ed th at

le tt in g a do or sl ip whi le tryin g to ho ld it is no t th e “ us e” of fo rce, e v e n t h o u g h th e

-6

-res ul t is th at th e do or cat ch es so m eo ne ’s fin ge rs

, bu t sl am m in g a do or wit h so m eo ne

fo ll owi ng cl os e be hi nd is th e “ us e” of fo rce, whe th er th e do or was sl am m ed wit h th e

cert ai nt y th at so m eo ne ’s fin ge rs wou ld be cau gh t or w i t h on ly th e aware ne ss th at

cat ch in g so m eo ne ’s fin ge rs was ve ry li ke ly. Id

. at 22 79

. Bu t th e Co ur t offe red th is

ex am pl e to su pp or t it s ho ld in g th at a “ m is de m ean or cri m e of do m es ti c vi ol en ce”

un de r 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (9 ) in cl ud es an of fen se co m

m it te d r eck le ss ly. See id

. (“ Onc e ag ai n, th e wor d ‘use ’ do es no t ex cl ud e fro m § 92 2( g) (9 )’s co m pa ss an act of

fo rce carr ie d ou t in co ns ci ou s di sr eg ard of it s su bs ta nt ia l ris k of cau s i n g ha rm .”).

Bec au se Voi si ne co nc ern ed th e men s re a req ui red fo r a “ us e” of fo rce, it do es no t

affe ct th is cas e, in whi ch su bs ect io n (a)( 1) of § 5- 26 -3 05 re q u i r e s t h e pu rp os e of

cau si ng in

jury to a fa m il y

or h ou se ho ld m em

be r.

St ark s al so al le ge s th at hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se th e

di st ric t co ur t im

pe rm is si bl y ba se d it s up ward va ria nc e on th e ne ed to ad dr es s St ark s’s

al co ho l-t reat m en t an d m en ta l-h eal th ne ed s, in vi ol at io n of Tap ia v. Uni te d St at es

, 56 4

U.S. 31 9 (2 01 1)

. Bec au se St ark s di d no t ob ject on th is ba si s be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t,

we rev ie w fo r pl ai n erro r, un de r whi ch “ th e de fen da nt m us t sh ow: (1 ) an erro r; (2 )

th at is pl ai n; an d (3 ) th at affe ct s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s.” Uni te d St at es v. Bl ack m on

, 66 2

F.3 d 98 1, 98 6 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 1 1 )

. The di st ric t co ur t jus ti fie d th e se nt en ce ba se d on

St ark s’s “ co ns is te nt an d vi ol en t cri m in al hi st or y ,” as well as t he ne ed to pro te ct hi s

fam il y an d th e pu bl ic fro m th e da ng er he po se s by po ss es si ng a fir earm

. The di st ric t

co ur t th en no te d th at it s se nt en ce was “ al s o to ad dr es s hi s ne ed s fo r hi s al co ho l

pr ob le m s an d pe rh ap s hi s m en ta l he a l t h n e e d s.” W e ack no wled ge th at th e di st ric t

co ur t’s sta te m en t can be read as go in g beyon d m erel y “ di sc us si ng th e op po rtu ni ti es

fo r reh ab il it at io n wit hi n pr is on ,” id

. at 98 7 (q uo ti ng Tap ia

, 56 4 U.S. at 33 4)

, an d we

are rem in de d th at Tap ia fo recl os es di st ric t co ur ts fro m im po si ng or le ng th en in g a

se nt en c e t o pr om ot e reh ab il it at io n or faci li ta te a de fen da nt ’s pa rti ci pa ti on in a

tre a t men t pr og ram

. Nev ert he le ss

, as su m in g th at th e di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou sl y

co ns id ered St ark s’s ne ed s fo r al co ho l an d m en ta l-h eal th tre at m en t in im po si ng th e

se nt en ce, St ark s ha s no t sh own t ha t he wou ld ha ve rece iv ed a di ffer en t se nt en ce

-7

-ab se nt su ch erro r. See id

. at 98 7 (“ [W] he re th e effe ct of th e erro r on th e res ul t in th e

di st ric t co ur t is un cert ai n or in de te rm in at e—wh ere we wou ld ha ve to sp ecu la te —t he

ap pe ll an t has no t m et hi s bu rd en of sh owi ng a reas on ab le pro ba bi li ty tha t t he res ul t

w o u l d h a ve be en di ffer en t bu t fo r th e erro r.” (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Pi ran i, 4 0 6

F.3 d 54 3, 55 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (en ba nc ))); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Pi ck ar, 66 6 F.3 d

11 67

, 11 69 -7 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (ci ti ng Bl ack m on an d ho ld in g n o p la in erro r in pa rt

be cau se pr op er se nt en ci ng fact or s were do m in an t). Hav in g fai le d to sh ow th at an y

erro r affe ct ed hi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s, St ark s h as th us no t s ho wn p la in erro r.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

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

-8

-