# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 4- 31 22

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 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.
Tim ot hy G. Oss an a
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 ctof M is so ur i - C ap e Gir ard eau

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Ju ne 8, 2 01 5 Fi le d: Ju ne 11 , 20 15 [Un publ is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re GRUENDER, MELLOY, andBENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Fo ll owi ng a pr io r fel on -in -p os se ss io n co nv ic ti on un de r 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ), Tim ot hy G. O s s an a twi ce ap pe al ed a cri m e-o f-v io le nc e de te rm in at io n un de r U.S. Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l § 2K2

. 1 ( a)(4 )(A). In Uni te d St at es v. Oss an a (Oss an a I), 63 8 F.3 d 89 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ), we he ld th e in it ia l fed eral se nt en ci ng reco rd in su ffi ci en t to de te rm in e whe th er a pr io r Ariz on a ag g r a v a t e d as sa ul t co nv ic ti onqu al ifi edas a cri m e o f vi ol en ce. The un de rlyin g Ari zo na st atut e was ov eri nc lu si ve

an d th e reco rd di d no t es tabl is h whi ch su bp art of th e st atut e su pp or te d Oss an a's

co nv ic ti on

. On rem an d, th e di st ric t co ur t ex pa nd ed th e reco rd , ap pl ie d th e m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch , an d fo u n d t h e A r iz on a co nv ic ti on qu al ifi ed as a cri m e of vi ol en ce. W e affi rm ed

. See Uni te d St at es v. Oss an a (Oss an a II), 67 9 F.3 d 73 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ).

Afte r Oss an a se rv ed hi s te rm of in carc erat io n fo r th at in it i a l 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ) co nv ic ti on , au th or it ie s aga in di sc ov ered hi m in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. He pl ead ed gu il ty in th e pr es en t cas e to an ot he r § 92 2( g) (1 ) v i o l a t io n an d, ag ai n, arg ue d th at th e sa m e un de rlyin g Ariz on a co nv ic ti on di d no t q u a l i f y as a cri m e of vi ol en ce. The di st ric t co ur t reject ed th e arg um en t an d se nt en ced hi m pu rs u a n t t o 1 U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 (a)( 4) (A). Oss an a ap pe al s.

Oss an a d oe s n ot rel y

up on ne wly de ve lo pe d l aw no r do es he po in t to a st at eco ur t reco rd di ffer en t fro m th at pr es en te d in Oss a na II. W e ad dr es se d th e 2 cl as si fic at io n of th e sa m e Ariz on a co nv ic ti on in de pt h in Oss an a II, an d Oss an a rai se s
no ne w ev id en ce no r arg um en ts t o c a s t d ou bt up on ou r pr io r ho ld in g or requi re a di ffer en t res ul t. The di st ric t co ur t in th e pr es en t cas e pr op erl y de te rm in ed th at th e Ariz on a co nv ic ti on qu al ifi es as a cri m e o f vi ol en ce.

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco ur t.

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

The Hon or ab le St ep he n N. Lim ba ug h, Jr ., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 East ern Dis tri ctof M is so ur i.
Oss an a ci te s Des cam

ps v. Uni te d St at es , 13 3 S. Ct

. 22 76 (2 01 3) , bu t do es no t 2
ex pl ai n ho w it ch an ge s th e an al y si s fro m th at em pl oyed in Oss an a II. Hav in g rev ie wedDesc am

ps , we do no t fi nd th atit requi res a di ffer en t re su ltin th is ap pe al

.

-2

-