FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 6, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 06- 2262 J OS E L UI S S ANC HE Z - GAR CI A,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF NE W M EX I CO

( D. C. NO. CR- 0 6 - 9 2 9 - J C) T e rr i J . A b e r n a th y, A s s i s t a n tU n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o rn e y ( D avi d C . I gl es i as , U ni t ed St at es A t t orney , w i th heron t he br i ef ) , L as C ruces , N M , forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee. J ames N . L angel l , A s s i s t antFeder al Publ i c D efe nder , L as C ruces , N M , for D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. B efor e KELLY , AN DE RS ON , and HENR Y , C i rcui tJudg es. HENR Y , C i r cui tJ udge. W e ar e as ked t o deci de w hetherunl aw ful us e of means of tr ans por t at i on ( “U U M T ”) , as defi ned i n A r i z. R ev. St at . § 13- 1803( A ) ( 1) , i s a “c r i m e of v i o l e n c e ” u n d e r1 8 U . S . C . § 1 6 ( b ) . W e c o n c l u d e i ti s n o t . A c c o r d i n g l y,- 2-

e x e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 7 4 2 ( a ) , we r e v e r s e th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s i m p o s i t i o n o f a n e i g h t - l e v e l “ a g g r a v a t e d fe l o n y” en h an ce m en t un d er U n it ed S tat es S en tenc ing G u idelines (“U S S G ”) § 2 L 1 .2 (b )( 1 )( C ), v a c a te th e d e fe n d a n t’ s s e n te n c e , a n d re m a n d fo r r e -s e n te n c in g . I . BA CK GR OUND A . F A C T U A L B AC KG R OUND In M a y2 0 0 5 , Jo se L u is S a n c h e z -G a rc ia p lea d e d g u iltyin A riz o n a sta te c o u rt to U U M T in v io la tio n o f A ri z . R e v . S ta t. § 1 3 -1 8 0 3 (A )( 1 ), a c la s s 5 fe lo n y . U nderA r i z. R ev. St at . § 13- 1803( A ) ( 1) , “[a ] per s on comm i t s [U U M T ] i f, w i thout i nt entperm anent l yt o depr i ve, the per s on . . . [k] now i ngl yt akes unauthor i zed contr ol overanotherper s on’ s m eans of tr ans por t at i on. ” M r . Sanchez - G ar ci a w as s ent ence d t o one- and- a- hal f y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm entand r emoved t o M exi co on February24, 2006. L es s than fi ve w eeks l at er , on M ar ch 28, 2006, he w as a rr e s te d in L u n a C o u n ty, N e w M e x ic o fo r i lle g a lly re e n te ri n g th e U n ite d S ta te s . H e s ubs equent l ypl eade d gui l tyt o i l l egal r eentryaft erdepor t at i on i n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 2 6 (a) an d (b)(2 ). B. S TATUT ORY B AC KG R OUND Fora vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1326, U SSG § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( C ) pr ovi des t hat the defendant ’ s offe ns e l evel s houl d be enha nced byei ghtl evel s i f the vi ol at i on fo l l o we d a c o n v i c t i o n fo ra n “ a g g r a v a t e d fe l o n y . ” F o rp u rp o s e s o f US S G § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( C ) , “aggr avat ed fe l ony ” i s defi ned i n the var i ous s ubs ect i ons of 8A nothers ubs ect i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) pr ovi des t hata “theft 1 offe ns e” i s al s o an aggr avat ed fe l ony . See 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( G ) . W hi l e the N i nth C i r cui thas hel d t hatU U M T , as defi ned i n A r i z. R ev. St at . § 13- 1803, does notcons t i tut e a “ theftoffe ns e, ” s ee U ni t ed St at es v. Per ez- C or ona, 295 F. 3d 996, 1001 ( 9th C i r . 2002) , thi s ques t i on i s notbefor e us and w e ther efor e expr es s no v ie w o n it.

- 3- U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) . See U SSG § 2L 1. 2, cmt . n. 3( A ) . T he onl ys ubs ect i on of thi s s t atut e r el evanther e def i nes an aggr avat ed fe l onyas “a c r i m e of vi ol ence ( as defi ned i n s ect i on 16 of Ti t l e 18, butnoti ncl udi ng a pur el ypol i t i cal offe ns e) for w h ic h th e te rm o f

im p ri s o n m e n t [ is ] a t le a s t o n e y e a r.” 8 U .S .C . § 11 01 (a) (43)( F ). S ect i on 16 , i n turn, defines a “cri m e of v i olence” as 1 ( a) an offen se thathas as an el ementthe us e, at t empt ed us e, or thr eat ened us e of phy s i cal for ce a gai ns tthe per s on orpr opertyof an o ther, or ( b) anyo ther o ffe ns e thati s a fe l onyand that , byi t s natur e, i nvol ves a s ubs t ant i al ri sk thatphy s i cal for ce a gai ns tthe per s on orpr opertyof a n o th e r m a yb e u s e d in th e c o u rs e o f c o m m ittin g th e o ffe n s e . 18 U . S. C . § 16. C . P R ES ENT ENC E I NV ES TI GA TI ON R EPORT C i t i ng U SSG § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( C ) , M r . Sanchez - G ar ci a’ s pr es ent ence i nves t i gat i on r eport( “PSR ”) char act er i zed U U M T as an aggr avat ed fe l onyand recom m end ed an ei gh t -l evel enhan cem ent t o M r. S anch ez-G arci a’s base offense leve l of eigh t. A fter a th ree -l ev el red u cti o n fo r ac ce p tanc e o f re sp o n sibil ity , M r. S an ch ez -G arc ia’s t o tal o ffen se lev el w as th irteen . W ith a c ri m inal h ist o ry c a te g o ry o f

IV , h is s u g g e s te d s e n te n c in g ra n g e w a s tw e n ty-fo u r t o th ir ty m o n th s .- 4- D . S ENT ENC ING M r . Sanchez - G ar ci a obj ect ed t o the ei ght - l evel enhanc ement , ar gui ng that U U M T is no t an a g g rav ated fe lon yb ec au se itd o es n o t fall w ith in § 1 6 ’s al t ernat i ve def

i ni t i ons of a c r i m e of vi ol ence . T he di s tr i ctcourtdi s agr eed a nd adopt ed the PSR ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs and G ui del i ne ca l cul at i ons . I tt hen s ent ence d M r. S anch ez-G arci a t o tw enty -four m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent fol l ow ed b yt w o y ears ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. I I . DI S CU S S I ON O n appea l , the part i es agr ee thatU U M T does notqual i fyas a cr i m e of vi ol ence under§ 16( a) beca us e A r i z. R ev. St at . § 13- 1803( A ) ( 1) does nothave a s an el ementthe us e, att empt ed us e, ort hr eat ened us e of for ce. T her e i s al s o no di s put e thatU U M T i s a fe l onypuni s habl e bym or e than one y earof i m pr i s onm ent . T hus , the s ol e i s s ue i s w hetherU U M T , as defi ned i n A r i z. R ev. St at . § 13- 1803( A ) ( 1) , fal l s w i thi n § 16( b) as a cr i m e “that , byi t s natur e, i nvol ves a s ubs t ant i al r i s k t hatphy s i cal for ce a gai ns tt he per s on orpr opertyof anotherm ay b e u s e d in th e c o u rs e o f c o m m ittin g th e o ffe n s e .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 (b ). A . S T A N D A RD OF R EVI EW W e r evi ew de novo the l egal ques t i on of w hethera pr i oroffe ns e cons t i tut es a cr i m e of vi ol ence under§16( b) and thus j us t i fi es an aggr avat ed fe l ony enhanc ementunderU SSG § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( C ) . See U ni t ed St at es v. T r et o- M ar t i nez, 4 2 1 F . 3 d 1 1 5 6 , 1 1 5 7 -58 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), ce rt . d en ied, 12 6 U . S . 1 0 8 9 (20 0 6 ).- 5- B. T HE C A T E G O R IC A L A PPROAC H T o d eterm ine w h ethe r a p ri o r offe n se is a “ crim e o f v iolen ce ” u n d er § 16( b) , w e appl ythe ca t egor i cal appr oach out l i ned i n T ay l orv. U ni t ed St at es , 495 U . S. 575, 588- 89 ( 1990) . See U ni t ed St at es v. V enega s - O rnel as , 348 F. 3d 1273, 1275 ( 10th C i r . 2003) . U nderthi s appr oach, w e exa m i ne onl yt he el ement s of the s t atut e of c onvi ct i on and di s r egar d the s peci fi c fa ctual ci r cumst ance s under l y i ng t he defendant ’ s pr i oroffe ns e. U ni t ed St at es v. L uci o- L uci o, 347 F. 3d 1202, 1204 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ; U ni t ed St at es v. R ey es - C as tr o, 13 F. 3d 377, 379 ( 10th C i r . 1993) . A ccor di ngl y , fora pr i oroffe ns e t o be a c r i m e of vi ol ence under§ 16( b) , the “s ubs t ant i al r i s k” of “ phy s i cal for ce” m us ti nher e i n the el ement s of the pr i oroffe ns e r athert han fr om t he s peci fi c conduc ti n w hi ch the d e fe n d a n t en g a g e d . S e e U n ited S tate s v . F ria s-T rujil lo , 9 F .3 d 8 7 5 , 8 7 7 (1 0 th Ci r . 1 9 9 3 ) ( “ Th e r e i s n o i n d i c a t i o n t h a tCo n g r e s s i n t e n d e d t h a ta p a r t i c u l a rc r i me m i ghts om et i m es countt ow ar ds enhanc ementand s om et i m es not , dependi ng on the fac ts of

the c ase . ”) (interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). W hi l e w e ar e pr ohi bi t ed fr om exami ni ng “the under l y i ng f acts of the char ged cr i m e, ” w e mayt ake i nt o acc ountcert ai n r ecor ds of the pr i orconvi ct i on, su ch as th e c h arg ing d o cu m en t and co m p ara b le j u d ici al reco rds, i f th e statuto ry defi ni t i on of the pr i oroffe ns e i s “ambi guous on i t s fac e bec aus e i tr eac hes differ ent types of

con du ctun der di fferentset s of el em ents . ” V eneg as- O rnel as, 348 F. 3d at1275 n. 1 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . T hi s exami nat i on does noti nvol ve- 6-

“a s ubj ect i ve i nqui r yas t o w hether[the] part i cul arfac tual ci r cumst ance s [ u n d e rly in g th e c o n v ictio n ] in v o lv e a risk o f v io len c e .” M c C a n n v . R o sq u ist, 18 5 F. 3d 11 13 , 11 17 n. 4 ( 10 th Ci r . 19 99 ) , va c a t e d o n o the rgr ou nd s , 52 9 U. S. 1126 ( 2000) ; s ee U ni t ed St at es v. R odr i guez, 979 F. 2d 138, 141 ( 8th C i r . 1992) ( “[T] he t erm ‘ byi t s natur e’ i n [§ 16( b) ] w oul d be r ender ed s uper fl uous i f the s ent enci ng court s w er e s addl ed w i th the t as k of exa m i ni ng eac h i ndi vi dual offe ns e comm i t t ed t o det erm i ne w hetheri tactual l yi nvol ved s ubs t ant i al r i s k of phy s i cal for ce. ”) . R ather , w e s i m pl yexami ne thes e document s t o det erm i ne w hi ch “pa r tof the s t atut e w as char ged aga i ns tthe [d] efe ndant ” and, thus , “w hi ch por t i on of the s t atut e t o exami ne on i t s fac e. ” V enega s - O rnel as , 348 F. 3d at 1275 n. 1. B . A N A LY S IS A s s etfor th above, A r i z. R ev. St at . § 13- 1803( A ) ( 1) pr ovi des t hata per s on c o m m its fe lo n yU U M T w h e n “ [ a ] p e rso n . . ., w ith o u t in ten t p e rm a n e n tlyto depr i ve . . . [k] now i ngl yt akes unauthor i zed c ontr ol overanother ’ s m eans of tra n sp o rta tio n .” T o e sta b lish U U M T , the S tate o f A riz o n a n e e d o n lyp ro v e th a t a defe ndant“( 1) know i ngl yt [ook] contr ol ; ( 2) w i thoutauthor i ty ; . . . ( 3) of another p e rso n ’s m e a n s o f

tra n sp o rta tio n . T h e p h ra se ‘w ith o u t in ten t to p e rm a n e n tly dep ri ve’ . . . do es not descr i be an el em ent of t he cri m e w hich the st at e m ust p ro v e .” S ta te v . K a m a i, 9 1 1 P .2 d 6 2 6 , 6 3 0 (A ri z . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 5 ). B eca us e A r i z. R ev. St at . § 13- 1803( A ) ( 1) does notr eac h di ffe r entt ypes of- 7-

conductunderdi ffe r ents et s of el ement s , ther e i s no need t o exami ne anyr ecor ds r el at i ng t o M r . Sanchez - G ar ci a’ s U U M T convi ct i on. C f. V enega s - O rnel as , 348 F. 3d at1276 ( exami ni ng j udi ci al r ecor ds of the defendant ’ s pr i orconvi ct i on for fi r s tdegr ee c r i m i nal tr es pas s w hen the s t atut e of c onvi ct i on expr es s l ycover ed a per s on w ho “‘ know i ngl yand unl aw ful l yent er s orr emai ns i n the dw el l i ng of an o ther or. . . ent er s anym ot orvehi cl e w i th i nt entt o comm i ta cr i m e ther ei n’ ”) ( quot i ng C ol o. R ev. St at . A nn. § 18- 4- 502) ( emphasi s added) ) . U ndert he cat egor i cal appr oach, then, the cr i t i cal ques t i on i s w hetherknow i ngl yt aki ng u n a u th o riz e d c o n tro l o v e r a n o th e r’s m e a n s o f tra n sp o rta tio n is a n o ffe n se “ th a t, byi t s natur e, i nvol ves a s ubs t ant i al r i s k thatphy s i cal for ce a gai ns tt he per s on or p ro p e rt yo f

a n o th e r m a yb e u s e d in th e c o u rs e o f c o m m ittin g [ it] .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 (b). T o ans w erthi s ques t i on, w e s t ar tw i th the pl ai n l anguage of § 16( b) , w hi ch “s i m pl ycover s offe ns es thatnatur al l yi nvol ve a pe r s on act i ng i n di s r egar d of the r i s k thatphy s i cal for ce mi ghtbe us ed aga i ns tanotheri n comm i t t i ng an offens e. ” L eoca l v. A s hcr oft , 543 U . S. 1, 10 ( 2004) . I n i nt erpr et i ng § 16( b) , w e have s t at ed thatthe “‘ us e of for ce’ l anguage i m pl i es t hats om e i nt ent i onal avai l m ent of for ce i s r equi r ed befor e an offens e r i s es t o the l evel of a c r i m e of vi ol ence . ” U ni t ed St at es v. M oor e, 420 F. 3d 1218, 1223 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( s om e i nt ernal q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). W e a lso h a v e p ro v id e d th a t th e ter m “ fo rc e ” re fe rs to “des truct i ve orvi ol entfor ce, ” V enega s - O rnel as , 348 F. 3d at1275 ( i nt ernal- 8-

quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) , and thatthe t erm “s ubs t ant i al r i s k” r equi r es a “hi gh pr obabi l i ty ” thats uch for ce maybe empl oy ed, i d. at1277. I n addi t i on, the ph ras e “i n the cou rs e of c om m i t t i ng the o ffen se” focu ses our i nq uiryon “t he ri sk of for ce us ed t o carr youtt he offens e i t s el f, r atherthan the r i s k of for ce r es ul t i ng fr om the offens e. ” I d. at1276 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . I n ot her w or ds , § 16( b) i s notconce r ned w i th the pos s i bi l i tyof an a cci dentorother pot ent i al effect s of a pe rpetr at or ’ s conduct , butw i th the pr obabi l i tythatthe perpetr at orm ayus e vi ol entfor ce t o acc om pl i s h the cr i m i nal obj ect i ve. See L eoca l , 543 U . S. at10 n. 7 ( “The ‘ s ubs t ant i al r i s k’ i n 16( b) r el at es t o the us e of fo rc e , n o t to th e p o s s ib le e ffe c t o f a p e rs o n ’s c o n d u c t.” ). A p p ly ing thes e p ri n ciples to A ri z. R ev . S tat . § 1 3 -18 0 3 (A )(1), M r. S a n c h e z -G a rc ia c o n ten d s th a t U U M T d o e s n o t fa ll w ith in § 1 6 (b ) b e c a u se its s t atut oryel ement s encompas s i nher ent l ynonvi ol entconduct , s uch as borr ow i ng a vehi cl e w i th the ow ner ’ s perm i s s i on and fa i l i ng t o r eturn i ton t i m e. I n r es pons e, the governm entconce des thatU U M T can be comm i t t ed i n nonvi ol entw ay s , but m a in ta in s a s u b s ta n tia l r is k e x is ts th a t in te n tio n a l v io le n t fo rc e m a y“ b e u s e d . . . as a m ea n s to g ain u n au tho ri ze d co n tr o l of the v eh icl e.” A p le’s B r. at 8. In s uppor tof thi s ar gum ent , the governm entdi r ect s ouratt ent i on t o U ni t ed St at es v. G a lv a n -R o d rig u e z , 1 6 9 F .3 d 2 1 7 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). T h e re , the F if th C irc u it c o n c lu d e d th a t th e T e x a s o ffe n s e o f u n a u th o ri z e d u s e o f

a m o to r v e h ic le , a s im ila r o ffe n s e to U U M T , do es c o n stitu te a c rim e o f v io len c e u n d e r § 1 6 (b ), inT h e g o v e rn m e n t als o c ites U n ited S tate s v . T h o m a s, 4 8 4 F .3 d 5 4 2 (8 th 2 C ir. 2 0 0 7 ), an d U n ited S tate s v . L in d q u ist, 4 2 1 F .3 d 7 5 1 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ), ce rt. deni ed, 127 S. C t . 2094 ( 2007) . T hes e ca s es , how ever , i nvol ve the ques t i on of w hetheroffe ns es i nvol vi ng the unauthor i zed ope r at i on of a mot orvehi cl e qual i fy a s “ c r i me s o f

v i o l e n c e ” u n d e rUSS G § 4 B1 . 2 , n o t§ 1 6 ( b ) . As b o th t h e S u p r e me C our tand thi s courthave pr evi ous l yobs erved, t he def i ni t i ons of cr i m e of viol ence in §1 6(b) and § 4B 1. 2 are di st i ng uis hab l e beca use t he fo rm er concerns a r i s k of for ce w her eas the l att erconce rns a r i s k of r es ul t i ng inju ry . S e e L e o c a l, 543 U . S. at10 n. 7; V enega s - O r nel as , 348 F. 3d at1277 n. 2. T he br oaders cope of § 4 B 1 .2 re n d e rs c a s e s lik e T h o m a s a n d L in d q u is t in a p p lic a b le h e re .

- 9- part , beca us e the cr i m e “c arr i es a s ubs t ant i al r i s k thatthe vehi cl e mi ghtbe b ro k e n in to , ‘s tr ip p e d ,’ o r v a n d a liz e d .” 1 6 9 F .3 d a t 2 1 9 . 2 L i ke anyoffe ns e i nvol vi ng t he unauthor i zed t aki ng of pr operty , i ti s cl ear there i s s o me chanc e thatdes truct i ve orvi ol entfor ce mi ghtbe empl oy ed i n the co m m issi o n o f U U M T w h en a p erso n init ial lytake s u n au tho ri ze d co n tr o l ov er a m ea n s o f tran sp o rt ati o n . F o r i n stan ce , o n e m igh t gain ac ce ss to a n o ther p erso n ’s l ock ed v ehicl e bybreaki ng a w i nd ow . O r, si m i l ar t o w hen a person en t ers a dw el l i ng w i thoutperm i s s i on, vi ol entfor ce mi ghtbe us ed i n a di r ect confr ont at i on w i th an occ upantof the vehi cl e ora thi r d- partyi nt ervenor . See L eocal, 54 3 U . S . at10 (s t at i ng t hat generi c bu rgl ary , byi t s nature, carr i es a subst anti al ri sk t hat vi olentforce w i l l be u sed aga i nsta person); V eneg asO rnel as , 348 F. 3d at1278 ( hol di ng thatfi r s tdegr ee c r i m i nal t r es pas s i nvol vi ng the unauthor i zed e ntr yi nt o a dw el l i ng, as defi ned byC ol or ado l aw , byi t s natur e, carr i es a s ubs t ant i al r i s k t hatvi ol entfor ce w i l l be us ed aga i ns ta per s on or p ro p e rt y ).- 10-

In th e c ase o f U U M T , h o w ev er, w e c an n o t saythes e risks a re “s ubs t ant i al . ” I ndeed, w e thi nk ther e i s a r el at i vel yl ow pr obabi l i tyof d e stru c tiv e o r v io len t fo rc e b e in g e m p lo y e d to g a in in iti a l co n tro l o v e r a v e h icle i n the comm i s s i on of U M M T beca us e A r i z. R ev. St at . § 13- 1803( A ) ( 1) e n c o m p a ss e s a b ro a d ra n g e o f c o n d u c t th a t d o e s n o t p re se n t any r i s k of s uch fo rc e b e in g u se d . F o r in sta n c e , A riz . R e v . S tat. § 1 3 -1 8 0 3 (A )(1 )’s ter m s p ro h ib it a p e rso n f

ro m d riv in g a re n tal v e h icle p a st th e e x p ira tio n o f a re n tal a g re e m e n t, b o rrow ing a c ar h e o r she k n o w s is st o len, an d su rrep ti ti o u slytakin g a f ri en d ’s key s and g oing “j oyri ding. ” M oreove r, even i f a ve hicl e i s broken i nto, i ti s l ess l i kel yfor ce w i l l be us ed aga i ns ta per s on dur i ng t he comm i s s i on of U U M T than in re sid e n tial b u rg lar yo r tre sp a ss b e c a u se “ th e in ter io rs o f v e h icle s a re g e n e ra lly vi s i bl e fr om the out s i de, and ther e i s l i t t l e r i s k thata thi ef w i l l s tum bl e upon an unexpec t ed occ upantonce he ors he gai ns entryt o the ca r . ” Sar eang Y e v. I . N . S. , 214 F. 3d 1128, 1134 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( hol di ng thatvehi cl e bur gl aryi s not a c ri m e o f

v io le n c e u n d e r § 1 6 (b )) . I n r eac hi ng thi s concl us i on, w e ar e m i ndful that“the pr operi nqui ryi s one thatcont empl at es the r i s ks as s oci at ed w i th the pr os cr i bed conduc ti n the m ai ns tr eam of pr os ecut i ons br oughtunderthe s t atut e. ” Luci o- L uci o, 347 F. 3d at 12 04 n. 2 ( i nt e r na l qu ot a t i on marks omi t t e d) ; s e e J a mes v. U ni t e d St a t e s , 12 7 S. C t . 1586, 1597 ( 2007) ( appl y i ng the ca t egor i cal appr oach t o det erm i ne w hether att empt ed bur gl aryfal l s w i thi n the A r m ed C ar eerC r i m i nal A ctand s t at i ng that- 11-

“the pr operi nqui r yi s w hethert he conduc tencompas s ed bythe el ement s of the o ffe n s e , i n the ordi na ry case , p re se n ts a se rio u s p o ten tial risk o f inju ryto a n o th e r” (e m p h a sis a d d e d )). N o tab ly , in th e in sta n t ca se , the o n lyA riz o n a sta te cas es ci t ed bythe part i es i nvol ved pr os ecut i ons underA r i z. R ev. St at . § 13- 1803( A ) ( 1) forconductthatpr es ent ed no r i s k of des truct i ve orvi ol entfor ce. For exampl e, i n St at e v. G r i es t , 994 P. 2d 1028 ( A r i z. C t . A pp. 2000) , an i ndi vi dual w ho or i gi nal l yhad perm i s s i on t o us e a ve hi cl e comm i t t ed U U M T w hen he “ put the [ve hi cl e] t o a us e the ow nerdi d noti nt end, and forper i od of t i m e that exce eded the ow ner ’ s perm i s s i on. ” 994 P. 2d at1029. See al s o K amai , 911 P. 2d at630 ( evi dence thatdefe ndant“t ook . . . [a] t ruck forl ongert han hi s empl oy er author i zed” s uppor t ed U U M T char ge) . T hatA r i z. R ev. St at . § 13- 1803( A ) ( 1) s ubs um es and has been us ed t o pr os ecut e thi s ki nd of conduc tfur ther demonstr at es thata hi gh pr obabi l i tyof the us e of de s truct i ve orvi ol entfor ce d o e s n o t in h e re in its s ta tu to ry e le m e n ts . T hatthe Fi fth C i r cui tr eac hed the oppos i t e dec i s i on i n thi s evol vi ng ar ea of law re g a rd in g th e T e x a s o ffe n se o f u n a u th o riz e d u se o f

a m o to r v e h icle in G al van -R od ri gu ez do es not pers uad e us otherw i se. A s an i nit i al m at t er, t his case has bee n h ars hlycri t i ci zed w i thin the F i ft h C i rcui t . S ee U nit ed S t at es v. C harl es, 275 F. 3d 468, 470 ( 5th C i r . 2001) ( Spar ks , J . , concurr i ng) ( s t at i ng that “G al van -R od ri gu ez . . . [i s] si m plyw ronglydecided” an d lam enti ng t hat “m ost tra ffic v io latio n s h a v e b e e n e lev a ted to c rim e s o f v io len c e in th e F if

th C irc u it”- 12-

( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ) . M or eover , the G al van- R odr i guez c our tci t ed no author i tyand offer ed l i t t l e expl anat i on fori t s bl ankets t at ementthatthe r i s k of a v e h ic le b e in g “ b ro k e n in to , ‘s tr ip p e d ,’ a n d v a n d a liz e d ” is in d e e d s u b s ta n tia l. 169 F. 3d at219. Fur therm or e, i n r ej ect i ng t he def endant ’ s ar gum entthatthe T exas s t atut e enc om pas s ed t oo m uch nonvi ol entconductt o pr es enta s ubs t ant i al r i s k of vi ol entfor ce, t he Fi fth C i r cui tr el i ed on the “s tr ong pr obabi l i ty ” thatan unauthor i zed dr i verm i ght“be i nvol ved i n orw i l l caus e a tr aff i c ac ci dent ” or att empt “t o evade the author i t i es bypr eci pi t at i ng a hi gh- s peed c archas e and th e re b yrisk [ ] th e liv e s o f o th e rs, n o t to m e n tio n sig n ifica n t d a m a g e to th e v e h icle and otherpr operty . ” I d. at219- 20. T hi s r at i onal e has s ubs equent l ybeen r ej ect ed b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt. S e e L e o c a l, 54 3 U .S . at 1 1 (“ In terp re tin g § 1 6 to encompas s acc i dent al ornegl i gentconductw oul d bl urthe di s t i nct i on betw een the

‘ vi ol ent ’ cr i m es C ongr es s s oughtt o di s t i ngui s h forhei ght ened puni s hm entand othercri m es. ”); i d. at10 n. 7 (“T he ‘subst anti al ri sk’ i n § 16 (b) rel at es t o the use of for ce, nott o the pos s i bl e effec tof a pe r s on’ s conduct . ”) ; s ee a l s o L uci o- L uci o, 347 F. 3d at1206 ( “W i thouta di s t i nct i on betw een c r i m es thatpot ent i al l yi nvol ve v i o l e n tc o n d u c ta n d c r i me s t h a tme r e l yi n v o l v e th e p o s s i b i l i tyo f r e s u l t i n g h a r m, the § 16( b) defi ni t i on w oul d be fa rt oo i ncl us i ve; anys uffi ci ent l ydanger ous act i vi ty , i ncl udi ng extr eme spe edi ng, unl aw ful tr ans por t at i on of haz ar dous ch em icals, o r ch il d n eg lect, m igh t qu ali fyas a crim e o f v iolen ce . ”). W e the refo re d e c lin e to fo llo w th e F if th C ir c u it’ s d e c is io n .- 13-

O u r c o n c lu sio n th a t U U M T d o e s n o t fa ll w ith in th e a m b it o f § 1 6 (b ) is but tr es s ed bythe “or di narym eani ng” of the t erm “cr i m e of vi ol ence , ” w hi ch “s ugges t s a ca t egoryof vi ol ent , act i ve cr i m es , ” Leocal , 543 U . S. at11, as w el l as a r evi ew of § 16( b) ’ s l egi s l at i ve hi s t ory . A s w e expl ai ned i n L uci o- L uci o, the types of cr i m es C ongr es s i nt ended t o be cove r ed by§ 16( b) ar e, atbot t om , “the s a me c a t e g o r i e s o f

o ffe n s e s d e s c r i b e d i n th e Di s tr i c tCo l u mb i a Co d e b yth e t e r ms

‘ da ng e r ou s c r i me’ a nd ‘ c r i me of vi ol e nc e . . . . ’ ” 34 7 F. 3d a t12 05 ( qu ot i ng S. R ep. N o. 98- 225, at20- 21 & n. 60, r epr i nt ed i n 1984 U . S. C . C . A . N . 3182, 3203- 04 ). T he o ffen ses l i st ed incl ud e m urder, rape, robbery , assor t ed b urgl arycri m es, a s s a u l twi th a d a n g e r o u s we a p o n , a n d t a k i n g p r o p e r tyb yfo r c e . I d . ( c i t i n g D. C. C o d e § 2 3 -13 3 1 (3), ( 4 ) (19 8 1 )). U U M T an d sim il ar o ffen ses a re n o t l ist ed . M o re im p o rta n tly , log ic a n d c o m m o n se n se in d ica te th a t C o n g re ss d id n o t in ten d to p u n ish a p e rso n w h o w a s d ilato ryin re tu rn in g a b o rro w e d c a r o r w e n t jo yrid in g in th e s a m e m a n n e r a s a c o n v ic te d m u rd e re r, r a p is t, r o b b e r, o r b u rg la r. I I I . CO NC L US I ON Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatU U M T , as defi ned i n A r i z. R e v . S t a t . § 1 3 - 1 8 0 3 ( A ) ( 1 ) , i s n o ta “ c r i m e o f v i o l e n c e ” u n d e r§ 1 6 ( b ) . We ther efor e R E V E R SE the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s i m pos i t i on of the ei ght - l evel aggr avat ed fel onyenhanc ementunderU SSG § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( C ) , V A C A T E M r . Sanchez G ar ci a’ s s ent ence , and R E M A N D forr e- s ent enci ng cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on.