1



### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10690
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v. RI CHA RD R AYHAR RI M ON D efen da n t
- A pp el l ee

A pp eal f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas
B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d W IE N E R an d B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui t Ju dg es. F O R T U N A T O P
. B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui t Ju dg e: In t h i s c ase w e consi der w h et h er a vi ol ati on of T e x as P en al C ode § 38. 04(b) ( 1) ( evadi ng ar r es t ordet ent i on by use of a v ehi c l e) i s a “ vi ol ent f el ony” for th e p u rp o se s o f th e A rm e d C a re e r C rim in a l A ct (“A C C A ”), 1 8 U .S .C
. § 9 2 4 (e). W e hol d that i t i s. I O n Jan u ary 11, 200 8, D efen da n t
- A pp el l ee R i cha rd R ay H arri m on pl ead ed gu i l t y t o t w o c o u n ts of possess i on of

a f i rearm by a conv i ct ed fel on i n vi ol ati on United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma y 14, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk08- 10690

Un de r 1 8U .S .C
. § 9 2 2 (g), it is : 1

u nlawful fo r a nyp er so n -- (1) wh o h as b eenconvicted in anycourt o f[] acrime pu nish abl e b y im pris on me nt fo r at er m e xce edin go n e y ear[]

. . . . to ship or transpo rt in inte rstate or forei gncommerce, or possess in or affectin g commerce, any firearm or ammuniti on; or to re ceive anyfir earm or a mmunition whichh as b eenshipped o r transporte d ininterstat e o r for eign commerce. Section 38.0 4 o f th e T ex as P enal C ode provides that: 2 (a) A p er so nc om mitsa noff en seif h e i nte ntion allyf le esf ro m ap er so nh e kn ow s isap eaceo ff

ic eratt em ptin gl awfullyt o arr es t ord et ainhim
. (b) An offen se u nder this sectio n is aC lass B misdemeanor, exce pt th at the of fe n sei s: (1) a state jail felony if the acto r u ses a ve hicle whileth e actor is in flight and th e a ct orh a s notb ee np revio u slyc onvicte d u n de r thisse ctio n [. ] 2 o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ), w h ic h is g e n e r a lly p u n is h a b l e b y u p t o te n y e a r s in 1 p r is o n , id
. § 9 24( a) ( 2)
. Th e AC C A , how eve r , “ i m pos es a m or e s t r i ngent 15- year m and at o r y m i ni m um s e nt e nc e on a n o f fe nde r w ho ha s t hr e e pr i o r c o nvi c t i o ns

‘ for a v i olen t fel on y or a s eriou s d ru g o ff en se.’” B egay v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 12 8 S
. C t. 158 1, 158 3 ( 200 8) ( qu ot i n g 18 § U .S .C . 9 2 4 ( e) ( 1) )
. H arri m on ha d three pri or fe l o ny c o nvi c t i o ns r e l e va nt t o t hi s appe al : a c o nvi c t i o n fo r b ur gl ar y o f a b ui l di ng in 1 9 8 6 a n d co n v ic tio n s fo r e v a d in ga r r e s t o r d e te n tio n b y u s e o f a v e h ic le (“f le e in gb y v e h ic le ”) in v io la tio n o f s e c tio n 3 8 .0 4 (a ) o f th e T e x a s P e n a l C o d e in 2 2003 and 200 4. Th e pr obat i on o f f i c e c onc l uded t hat t he A C C A ’ s f i f t ee n- year m a n d a tory m i n i m u m sen ten ce d i d n ot ap p l y b eca u se fl ee i n g b y v eh i cl e is n ot a vi o l e nt fe l o ny, a nd t he g o ve r nm e nt o bj e c t e d. At t he s e nt e nc i ng he ar i ng o n J une08- 10690

3 13 , 20 08 , t he di s t r i c t c o ur t o ve r r ul e d t he go ve r nm e nt ’ s o bj e c t i o n and i m posed
co n current s en t en ces of ni n et y- si x m on t h s of i m pri sonm en t f

ol l ow ed by t h ree y e a r s o f s u p e r v is e d re le a s e fo r e a c h co u n t. T h e g o v e r n m e n t t im e ly a p p e a le d
. II W e revi ew t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s i n t erpret ati on an d app l i cat i on of t h e A rm ed C a ree r C ri m i n a lA ct de no vo . Un ited S ta tes v. Helm , 502 F
. 3d 366 , 367 ( 5th C i r. 20 07 ) ( pe r c ur i am )
. Fo r t he pur po s e s o f t he AC CA , a “ vi o l e nt fe l o ny” i s “ any crim e p u n i sh a b l e b y im p ri son m en t f or a term ex cee d i n g o n e y ea r” t h a t: ( i) ha s as an el em en t t h e use, att em pted u se, or t h reat en ed u se of ph ysi calf

orce aga i n stt h e person of an ot h er; or ( i i) i s burgl ary, arson, or extor t i on , i n vol ves use o f expl osi ves, or ot h erw i se i n vol ves condu ctt h at pres en t s a ser i ou s pot en t i al ri sk of p h y s ic a l inju r y to a n o th e r . 1 8 U .S .C
. § 9 2 4 (e)(2 )(B ).

“ I n de t e r m i ni ng w he t he r [ a] c r i m e i s a v i o l e nt fe l o ny, w e co ns i de r t he of fen se generi cal l y, t h at i s to say, w e ex am i n e itin term s of how t h e l aw def

i n es t h e of fen se and n ot i n t erm s of how an i n di vi du al of fen der m i gh t ha ve com m i t t ed i t on a p a rti cu l a r occa sion
. ” Beg ay , 1 2 8 S . C t. a t 1 5 8 4 ; seeC h am bers v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 9 S. C t
. 687, 690 ( 2009) ( “ Th e [A C C A ’ s] def i ni ng l anguage, r ead
n a tu ra ll y , u se s ‘ felo n y ’to r e fer to a cr im e a s g e n e ra ll y co m m itted .”) ; Tayl orv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 4 9 5 U .S
. 5 7 5 , 6 0 2 (19 9 0 ) ( a d o p tin gth is “ca te g o rica l ap p ro a ch ”);
seeal so Jam es v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 550 U
. S
. 192 , 203 ( 200 7) ( “ [ W ] e consi der
w h et h er t h e el em ents of t h e of f ense are of

t h e t yp e t h at w ou l d j u st i f y i t s i n cl u si on w ith in th e r e s id u a l p r o v is io n , w ith o u t in q u ir in g in to th e s p e c ific co n d u c t o f th is p a r tic u la r o ffe n d e r .”). H e r e , th e e le m e n ts o f fle e in gb y v e h ic le a r e cle a r ly defi n ed u n der T exas l aw : “ ( 1) a person, ( 2) i n t en t i on al l y f l ees, ( 3) f

rom a peace08- 10690

Harrim onargu esth at his2 0 0 3c onvictionf orev a din garr es t or de te ntion b yu seo f a 3 vehicl e was not “pu nis hable by a termof imp ris onm ent exceedi ng one year” unde r 18 U.S .C. § 9 24(e)(2)(B) because it was punishe d as a Cla ss A m isdemeanor und er se ction12 .44 of th e Tex as P enal Cod e. Section 12.4 4 (1) all ows ju dge s to punish defen dant s convicted of state j ail felonies such as the crime at issue here , which are ge nerallypu nish abl e b y imprison ment of u p totwoyears , see Tex . Penal Code§ 12 .35(a), as Cl ass A misdemeanors, for whichon e year isth e maxim u m t er m o f im pris on me nt, se e id
. § 12.21 ; and ( 2) allo ws the cour t to auth orize prosecutors t o prosecute state j ailfel oni es a s C lass A misdemeanors. Tex . P enal C ode § 1 2.44
. Inar guing

th at his 200 3 c onvicti on was n ot“ p un is hab le” bymoreth an oneyear’ s imprison ment, Harrimonrelies on United States v. Rodriqu ez , 128 S. C t. 1 7 8 3( 2 0 0 8). Rodriquez , ho wever , provides no support. In that case, the Supre me C ourth eld that th e l ower courts err ed in failing to include a statut ory recidivism enhancement whe n determinin g the “maximum term of impri sonment” u nder ano therA CCA provision , conclu ding th at “the c on c ept nece ssarily referr ed toth e maxi mum te rm prescribe d byth e re lev antcri minal statut e.” Rodriqu ez , 12 8 S. Ct. at 1792. Here, the relev antstatute plainlyauthoriz es u p to two years of imprison ment for ev adin g arre st or detention by use of a ve hicle, Tex . P enal C ode § 3 8.04 (a), afact which is u naltered byth e sentencing j udge’s di scretio nary decision eith er t o impose a lesser sente nce or to all ow the prosecutor to prosecute the offen se as amisdemeanor (it isn otc le ar fromth e re co rdwhicho f th es e po ssib ilitie s o cc u rr ed). 4 o ffic e r , (4 ) w ith k n o w le d g e h e o r s h e is a p e a c e o ffic e r , ( 5 ) t h e p e a c e o ffic e r is att em pti n g t o arres t or detai n t h e person, (6) the att em pted arrestor detenti on i s l a w ful, an d ( 7 ) th e p erso n u ses a v eh i cl e w h i l e . . . i n f l i gh t. ” Po w ell v. S ta te , 206 S. W
. 3d 142, 143 ( Tex. A pp. — W ac o 2006, pet
. r ef ’ d)
. So def

i ned, f l ee i ng by
ve hi c l e i s pun i s hab l e b y m o r e t han o ne y e aro f i m pr i s o nm e nt
. Te x. Pe nalCod e 3 38. 04(a)
. Tu rni n g t o t h e ot h er el em en t s of § 924(e) ( 2) ( B ) , t h e governm en t does
n ot contend ei t h er t h at f l eei n g by veh i cl e ha s as an el em en t t h e use, att em pted
u s e , o r th r e a te n e d u s e o f p h y s ic a l fo r c e a g a in s t t h e p e r s o n o f a n o th e r ; th a t it is b u r g l a r y , a r s o n , o r e x t o r t i o n ; o r t h a t i t i n v o l v e s t h e u s e o f e x p l o s i v e s . 1 8 U. S
. C. § 924 ( e) ( 2) ( B )
. Th eref ore, w e m u stconsi der w h et h e r it “otherw i se i n vol ves cond u ctt h at pres en t s a ser i ou s pot en t i al ri sk of ph ysi cali nj u ry t o an ot h er”
u n d e r th e “r e s id u a l” p r o v is io n o f c la u s e (ii) o f § 9 2 4 (e )(2 )(B ). As t he Supr e m e Cour t e xp l ai ne d i n B egay v. Un i t ed S t ate s , t h e exam pl es08- 10690

5 i n cl au se (i i)

— bu rgl ary, arson, ext ort i on , an d cri m e s in v ol vi n g t h e use of
e x p lo s iv e s — lim it “ th e cr im e s th a t c la u s e (ii) c o v e r s to cr im e s th a t a r e ro u g h ly
s im ila r , in k in d a s w e ll a s in d e g r e e o f r is k p o s e d , to th e e x a m p le s th e m s e lv e s .” 1 2 8 S . C t. a t 15 8 5
. T h e “p rese n ce [of th e ex a m p l es] i n d i ca tes th a t t h e sta tu te
c ove r s onl y s i m i l arcri m es . . . . ” Id
. Th us, i n det er m i ni ng w het her f l ee i ng by
ve hi c l e a s de f

i ne d i n Te xa s Pe nalCod e § 3 8. 04 i s a v i o l e nt fel ony f o r t he pur p o s e s o f t h e ACCA, we m u s t d e c i d e wh e t h e r i t i s r o u g h l y s i m i l a r t o t he
exam pl es in c l au se (i i) both ( 1) i n ki n d an d ( 2) i n degree of ri sk posed ( w h i ch
m u s t b e a t le a s t a s e r io u s p o te n tia l ris k o f p h y s ic a l inju r y to a n o th e r ). S ee C h am bers v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 29 S
. C t
. 6 87, 6 91– 93 (2009) (h ol di n g t h at fai l u re t o rep ortto a pen al i n st i t u t i on , w h i ch i s c on ceptual l y di f ferent f rom t h e cr i m es l i st ed i n cl au se ( i i) a n d does n ot p ose a seri ou s p ot en t i al ri sk of ph ysi cali nj u ry to a n o th e r, i s n o t a v iole n t felo n y u n d e r th e A C C A ). III A W e f i r stcons i derw het her the c r i m e a t i ss ue i s si m i l ar i n ki nd t o b urgl ar y, a r s o n , e x t o r t i o n , o r c r i me s i n v o l v i n gt h e u s e o f e x p l o s i v e s . A s t h e S u p r e me C ou rtst ated i n B egay, t he s e c r i m e s “ al lt yp i c al l y i nvo l ve pur po s e f ul , v i o l e nt , a nd
a g g r e s s iv e co n d u c t.” 1 2 8 S . C t. a t 1 5 8 6 (q u o t a tio n o m itt e d ). “T h a t c o n d u c t is such t h at i t m ak es m ore l i kely t h at an of fen der, l aterpossess i n g a gu n , w i l luse th a t gu n d elib era tel y to h a rm a v i cti m . ” Id
. Thus , i n Beg ay , t he C our t hel d t hat t he v i o l at i o n o f

a N e w M e xi c o D U I s t at ut e , w hi c h di d n ot de m and pur po s e f ul
c o nduc t a nd t hus di d no t “ s ho w a n i nc r e as e d l i ke l i ho o d t hatt he o f fe nde r i s t he ki nd of per so n w ho m i ght del i ber at el y po i nt t he gun and pul lthe t r i gge r , ” w as n o t a v io le n t fe lo n y u n d e r th e A C C A
. Id
. a t 1 5 8 7
.08- 10690

6 W e concl u de t h at f

l eei n g by vehi cl e i s pu rposef u l , vi ol en t , an d ag gressi ve. Fi r s t , i t i s pur po s e f ul : unl i ke the D U I st at ut e a t i s s ue i n Beg ay , f l ee i ng by
v e h ic le re q u ir e s in te n ti o n a l co n d u c t. F u r th e r , it is a g g r e s s iv e . “A s co m m o n ly und er st oo d , aggr es si ve behavi ori s of fens i ve and f

or c ef ul and c harac t er i ze d by i n i ti a ti n g h ostil i ti es o r attac k s. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. W est , 55 0 F
. 3 d 95 2 , 96 9 ( 1 0 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( q uo t a t i o n o m i t t e d )
. Fl e e i ng b y v e hi c l e r e q ui r e s d i s r e g a r di ng an o f f i c e r ’ s l awf

ulo r de r , w h i ch i s a c l e arc hal l e nge t o t he o f f i c e r ’ s a ut ho r i t y and ty p ic a lly in itia te s p u r s u it. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. S pells , 5 3 7 F
. 3 d 74 3 , 75 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( “ Taki ng f l i ghtc al l s t he o f

f i ce r t o g i ve c has e , a nd a s i de f r o m a ny ac c o m pa nyi ng r i s k t o pe de s t r i ans a nd o t he r m o t o r i s t s , su ch f l i ghtda r e s t he of f i c ert o ne edl es sl y e ndanger hi m se l f i n purs ui t
. ” )
. Thi s ac t i ve defi ance of an att em pted st op or arres t i s s i m i l ar t o t h e beh aviorun derl yi n g an esc ap e f rom c us t o dy , w hi c h, a s t he Supr e m e C o ur t not e d i n C h am bers , i s “ l e s s pa s s i ve ” a nd

“ m or e a ggr es si ve” t han th a t li k el y under l yi ng fai l ure t o r epo r t
. 128 S. C t
. at 6 9 1
. F l ee i n g by ve h i cl e i s a l so viol en t: th e use of a ve h i cl e, u s u a lly a ca r , t o e va de a r r e s t o r de t e nt i o n t yp i c al l y i nvo l ve s v i o l e nt f o r c e w hi c h t he a r rest i ng o f f i c e r m us t i n s o m e w ayo ve r c o m e . As t he Se ve nt h Ci r c ui t o bs e r ve d i n S p ells , n ot o n l y th e a rres ti n g off i cer o r off

i cers , bu t also pe d estrian s an d oth er m otorists
a r e s u b j e c t t o th is fo r c e . S p ells , 5 3 7 F .3 d a t 7 5 2
. F u r th e r , fle e in gb y v e h ic le “w i l ltyp i ca l l y lea d to a con fron tati on w i th the off i cer b ein g d i sob ey ed , ” a
c o n fr o n ta tio n fr a u g h t w ith r is k o f v io le n c e . W est , 5 5 0 F .3 d a t 9 7 0 ; s e e Jam e s v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 550 U
. S
. 192 , 203 ( 200 7) ( “ T h e m ai n ri sk of bu rgl ary a rise s n ot f r o m t he s i m pl e phy s i c al ac t o f w r o ngf ul l y e nt e r i ng o nt o ano t he r ’ s pr o pe r t y, b ut
r at her f r om t he pos sibi l i t y o f a fac e- t o- fac e c onf

r ont at i on be t w ee n t he bur gl ar a n d a th ird p a rty
. . . . ”).08- 10690

Our co nclusio n is also consi stent withUnited States v. Roseb oro , inwhich the Fourth 4 Circuit stated that “[t]heintention al act of disobeyinga law enfo rcement officer byrefu sing to sto p for his blu e light sign al, without justification, is inhe rentlyan aggressive and violent act, and, ther efore , a violent fel onyu nder the AC CA ” and reman d edf

oradete rminationof wheth er the defen dant’s convicti on for a vio lation of SouthCarolina’s failure to stop for a b lue li ght st atutewa s inte ntion al. 5 5 1 F .3 d 2 2 6 , 2 4 0 (4 th C ir
. 2 0 0 9) (c it ation a n d fo ot n ot e om itte d)
. Harrimonalso argu es th at und er United States v. Joh nson , th e re sidual provisionof 5 clau se (ii) c overs o nlycon duct that pose s a risk topro perty
. 286 F. App’x 155 , 157–58 (5thC ir. 2008) (percuriam ) (c itin g Begay , 1 28S. Ct. at 158 6 (“ Con gre ss sought to e xpand th[e] definitio n [of viol ent felony] to include bothcri mes again st th e pe rson (clau se (i)) an d ce rtain phy sicallyris kycri me s again stpro pe rty(cl au se(ii)) ”) ). Thisis ac orre ctr ea din go f Joh nson , see id
. at 1 5 8 ; h ow ever , whil e u n pub li sh edo pinio n s arep er su a siv e au th ority , see 5th Cir. R. 4 7 .5 .4 , wed eclin e tof

ollo w Joh nson . As theT enthC ircuit has cogently explained, while Begay discusses Con gre ss’s intentto includephysic ally risky property crimes in the AC CA , “th e 7 Al t ho ugh t he Se ve nt h a n d T e n t h Ci r c u i t s h a v e r e a c h e d s i m i l a rc o n c l us i o ns p ost- Beg ay w hi l e a nal yz i ng s i m i l ars t at ut e s i n S p ells a nd W

est , w e no t e t hatt he 4 El e ve nt h Ci r c ui t has no t
. I n Un i t ed S t ate s v. Harri son , t he c our t , anal yzi ng a Fl o r i da s t at ut e s i m i l ar t o t he Te xa s s t at ut e a t i s s ue he r e , he l d t hat“ di s o be yi ng a poli ce of

f i cer’ s s i gn al an d conti n u i n g t o d ri ve on , w i t h ou t hi gh speed or rec kles s c o nduc t , i s no t s uf f i c i e nt l y ag gr e s s i ve a nd v i o l e nt e no ugh t o b e l i ke t he
en u m erat ed A C C A cr i m es, ” an d that “ [ i ] t i s not t h e del i berate ki n d of beh avior associ ated w i t h vi ol en t cri m i n al use of f i rearm s. ” 558 F
. 3d 128 0, 129 5 ( 11th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( q u o t a t i o n o mi t t e d )
. Whi l e Ha r r i mo n u r g e s t h a t we f o l l o w Harri son , f

or t h e r e a s o n s e x p la in e d a b o v e , w e r e s p e ctfu ll yd isa g re e w ith th e E lev e n th C ir c u it ’s
a n a ly s is
. Cf. C h am bers , 1 29 S. C t
. at 694 –9 5 & n. 2 (Al i t o , J. , co nc ur r i ng) ( no t i ng th a t t h e “‘ ca teg orical ap p roa ch ’to pre d i ca te off en ses h a s c r eat ed num er ou s sp l i ts a m o n gth e lo w e r fe d e r a l c o u r t s ” a n d l is t in gc a s e s ). T o o u r m in d s , a n o ffe n d e r ’s
w i l l i n gn ess t o us e a ve hi c l e t o f l out an of

f i c er ’ s l aw f

ul or dert o s t op s how s “ an i n creased l i keli h ood” t h at t h e of fen der w ou l d, i f

arm ed an d faced w i t h capture, “d e lib e r a te ly p o in t t h e g u n a n d p u ll th e tr ig g e r .” Beg ay , 128 S. C t
. at1587. 508- 10690

dispositivesection of th e Begayop in io n specific ally hol ds . . . th at the AC CA’s re sidual lan gu age include s prior convicti ons for offen ses that, like bur gl ary , ar son, extorti on or crimes involving

explosives, co ncern conduct th at is purposeful, viol ent, and aggre ssive .” West , 55 0 F .3 d at 967 (quo tationo mitt ed); see id
. at96 7–6 8 (notin g, in addition, that extorti on—an ex ample crime—i s no t apro pertycri me and that Begay was no t decided on the gro und s that DUIi s notap ro pe rtyc ri me , a n d co ll ec tin gc a se s)
. 8 B W e n e x t c o n s id e r w h e th e r fle e in gb y v e h ic le is s im ila r to th e e x a m p le
c r im e s in d e g r e e o f r is k , Beg ay , 128 S
. C t
. a t 1 585 , a n d t h u s “i n vol ve[ s] condu ct th a t pre sen ts a seriou s p oten ti a l ri sk of p h ys i ca l i nj u ry to a n oth er,” C h am bers , 1 2 9 S . C t. a t 6 9 1 (q u o ta tio n o m itt e d ). A s th e S u p r e m e C o u r t e x p la in e d in Jam es , the c at ego r i c alappr oac h does notr equi r e “ t hat ev er y c onc ei vabl e fac t ual of fen se c overed by a st atute m u stnecessari l y present a ser i ou s pot en t i al ri sk of i njury b efor e t he o f fens e c an be dee m ed a vi ol ent fel ony. ” 550 U
. S. at208. “R a th er, th e p rop er inq u i ry i s w h eth er th e c onduct en com p a sse d by the elem en ts of t h e of fen se, i n th e ord i n a ry ca se, p rese n ts a ser i ou s p oten ti a lri sk of i nj u ry to a n oth er.” I

d. H ere, w e ha ve n o di f f i cul t y concl u di n g t h at, i n the ordi n ary case, f l eei n g by veh i cl e p o se s a seri ou s r i sk of i nj u ry t o ot h ers. W h i l e H arri m on ar gue s t hatf

l e e i ng byve hi c l e doe s notbe c o m e dang e r o us unt i ll aw enf o r c e m e nt i n t errupts t h e perpetrat or, f l eei n g by vehi cl e, by def i n i t i on , can on l y occur af t er a n in itia l a tt e m p t b y a n o ffic e r to a r r e s t or d e ta in th e p e r p e tr a to r . “ T h is di sobedience poses t h e t h reat of a d i rectconf

rontat i on betw een t h e pol i ce of f i cer and t he o c c upa nt s o f t he v e hi c l e , w hi c h, i n t ur n, c r e at e s a po t e nt i alf o r s e r i o us ph y sica l i nj u ry t o t h e of f i cer, ot h er oc cup an t s of t h e veh i cl e, an d even b ys tan d ers.” W

est , 5 5 0 F .3 d a t 9 6 4

– 6 5 (q u o ta tio n o m itt e d ). M o r e o ve r , w hi l e i t i s po s s i bl e , a s H ar r i m o n ar gue s , t o b e g ui l t y o f f l e e i ng b y v e h ic le d e s p ite o b e y in ga ll tr a ffic la w s a n d la te r s u r r e n d e r in gq u ie tly , see08- 10690

Fl eein g byvehicle maybesimil arlydistingui s hed from simpl e mot or vehicle theft, 6 whichwe h ave h eld does not pr es en tas er io us pote ntial risk of phy sicalin jury to anoth er, United State sv. Cha r les , 30 1 F .3d 3 09, 313–15(5th Cir. 2 002 ) (enbanc). Wh erea s simple motor theft frequ ently occurs without being observe d or inte rrupte d, fleeingbyvehicle cannot. 9 Harri son , 5 58 F. 3d a t 1 29 5, w e t hi nk t hat , i n t he t yp i c alc as e , a n o f fe nde r f l e e i ng f r o m a n a t t e m pt e d s t o p o r a r r e s t w i l lno t he s i t at e t o e nda nge r o t he r s t o m ak e g o o d h is o r h e r e s c a p e . S ee W est , 5 50 F. 3d a t 9 64 ( “ [ U ] nde r t he s t r e s s a nd urge ncy w hi c h w i l lnat ural l y at t end hi s si t uat i on, a pe r so n f l ee i ng f r om l aw en f orcem en t w i l ll i kely dri ve reckl essl y an d turn a n y pu rsui t i n t o a high- speed
c h a s e w ith th e p o te n tia l fo r s e r io u s h a r m to p o lic e o r in n o c e n t b y s ta n d e r s .” ( quot i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. K end ri ck , 4 2 3 F .3 d 8 0 3 , 8 0 9 ( 8 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 )); seeal so Jam es , 550 U
. S
. at 208 ( “ O n e can alw ays h yp ot h esi ze un u sua lcases i n w h i ch
even a prot ot yp i cal l y vi ol en t cr im e m i gh t not present a gen u i n e ri sk of i nj ur y— f

o r e xa m pl e , a n a t t e m pt e d m ur de r w he r e t he g un, unb e kno w ns t t o t he
s h o o te r , h a d n o b u lle ts [.]”)
. It i s t hi s m ar ke d l i ke l i ho o d o f pur s ui t a nd c o nf

r o nt at i o n t hats e pa rat es f l e e i ng byv e hi c l e f

r o m fai l ur e t o rep o r t t o a pe nali ns t i t ut i o n, w hi c h t he S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s s a id d o e s n o t p o s e s u c h a ris k
. S ee C h am bers , 129 S. C t
. at 691–93. I n t he c as e o f fai l ure t o rep ort, “ [ t ] her e i s no r eas on t o b el i eve ” t hat
w hat eve r t he of

fender i s doi ng i nst ead pos es a se r i ous pot ent i alr i sk of physi c al i nj u ry, an d i n deed , “ an i n di vi du al w h o fai l s t o reportw ou l d seem un l i kely, not lik e ly , to ca ll a tt e n tio n to h is w h e r e a b o u ts b y s im u lta n e o u s ly e n g a g in gin
a d d itio n a l v iolen t an d u n l a w ful con d u ct. ” Id
. at 692. I n t he c as e o f f l ee i ng by
v e h ic le , h o w e v e r , w e k n o w fr o m th e n a tu r e o f th e o ffe n s e w h a t t h e o ffe n d e r is d o in g : u s in ga v e h ic le to e v a d e a n o ffic e r ’ s a tt e m p t to la w fu lly a r r e s t o r d e ta in t h e of fen der, w i t h t h e ri sks di scussed abov e. 608- 10690

10 Fi nal l y, w hi l e , unl i ke t he Supr e m e Cour t i n C h am bers , w e do no t ha ve t he benef i t of a r epo r t f

r om the U ni t ed Stat es S ent enc i ng C om m i ss i on, the em pi r i c al evi den ce app ears t o sup port t h e “ i n t u i t i ve bel i ef ” t h at f l eei n g by vehi cl e i n vol ves a s e r io u s p o te n tia l ris k o f p h y s ic a l inju r y to o th e r s . I d. W e no t e t hata c c o r di ng to a s tu d y fun d ed b y th e J u sti ce D ep a rtm en t an d coll ecting po l i ce p u rsu i t da ta f r o m f i f t y- s i x l aw e nf

o r c e m e nt ag e nc i e s i n t hi r t y s t at e s , 3 14 i nj ur i e s ( i nc l udi ng fatali nj u ri es) t o pol i ce and bystand ers resul t ed f rom 7, 737 report ed p u rsui t s. C y n th ia L u m & G e o r g e F a c h n e r , I n t’l A s s o c . o f C h ie fs o f P o lic e , Po lice P u rs u its i n a n A g e o f I n n o v a t i o n a n d R e f o r m 5 7 (20 0 8 ) , ht t p: //w w w . t hei ac p. or g/Li nk Cl i c k. a s p x ? f i l e t i c ke t = I l J Dj Y r usB c % 3d& t abi d=392. T h i s am o u n t s t o rough l y . 04 i nj u ri es t o ot h ers per pu rsui t
. O f course, t h ese num be r s do no t t e l lus ho w o f t e n t he c o nduc t unde r l yi ng f l e e i ng byve hi c l e l e ad s to p o lic e p u r s u its , b u t if, a s w e s tr o n g ly s u s p e c t, p u r s u its o c c u r a r e a s o n a b le per c ent age of

t he t i m e, th en t he r i sk of i nj ury t o o t her s w oul d appeart o b e a t le a s t “ r o u g h ly s im ila r ” t o t h a t a s s o c ia te d w ith a r s o n . Beg ay , 128 S. C t
. at1585. A c c or di ng t o t he U ni t ed St at es Fi r e Adm i ni st r at i on, t her e a r e r oughl y 267, 000 f i r es att r i but ed t o a r so n perye ar , r es ul t i ng i n ove r 2, 475 i nj uri es , i ncl udi ng fat al i nj u ri es— an d, app aren t l y, i nj u ri es t o perpetrat ors— or rough l y . 009 i nj u ri es per a r s o n . U .S
. F ir e A d m in ., A rson i n t h e Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 T opi calF i re R esearch S e rie s (I s s u e 8 ) ( 2 0 0 1 ), h t t p ://w w w .u sfa .dh s.g o v/do w n loa d s/p d f/tfrs /v1 i8 -5 0 8 .pd f;
seeal so U .S . F ir e A d m in ., A rson f or Prof i t :Nati on al A rson A w areness W eek M e d i a K it 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) , ht t p: //w w w . us fa. dhs
. go v/ do w nl o ad s / pdf / ar s o n/ aa w 09

_ m e di a_ ki t
. pdf ( r e po r t i ng a N ati on al F i re P rot ect i on A ssoc i ati on est i m ate of 323 , 900 “ i n t en tion a l f i res”
r epo r t ed t o U ni t ed St at es fi re d ep ar t m ent s i n 2005, r es ul t i ng i n 9, 593 c i vi l i an08- 10690

11 and on- dut y f

i r ef i ght eri nj uri es , i ncl udi ng fat ali nj uri es , orappr oxi m at el y . 03 inju r ie s p e r in te n tio n a l fir e , a p p a r e n tly in c lu d in ginju r ie s to p e r p e tr a to r s ). IV F o r th e fo r e g o in gre a s o n s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d a s a m a tt e r o f la w in concl u di n g t h at a vi ol ati on of T exas P en al C ode § 38. 04(b) ( 1) ( evad i n g arrestor de t e nt i o n b y us e o f

a v e hi c l e ) i s no t a “ vi o l e nt f e l o ny” f o r t he pur po s e s o f

t he A C C A
. W e t h eref

ore VA C A T E H a rr im on ’ s s en t en ce and R E M A N D f or r es e nt e nc i ng c o ns i s t e nt w i t h t hi s o pi ni o n.