2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
1-14-2010 

# U SA v . M el vin S t inson P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-1717

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . M elvin S t in s on" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1966. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1966P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 08- 1717
UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M E L VI N S T I NS ON, a/k/ a Tank M el vi n St i ns on, A ppel l ant
O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. C r i m . N o. 2- 07- cr - 00170- 1) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Eduar do C
. R obr eno
O r i gi nal l ySubm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a) on

J ul y6, 2009 O pi ni on Fi l ed J ul y28, 2009 and V aca t ed Sept ember24, 2009 A r gued on Panel R ehea r i ng O ct ober8, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O , and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed J anuary14, 2010)

T hom as F. B ur ke L aw O ffi ce of

W i l l i am J. B r ennan Phi l adel phi a, PA 191032 A t t orneyforA ppel l ant R obertA
. Z auzmer( A r gued) A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney C h ief o f A p p e a ls M a ria M . C a rrillo A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 A t t orney s forA ppel l ee S a ra h S . G a n n e tt A s s i s t antFeder al D efe nder D avi d L
. M cC ol gi n ( A r gued) Super vi s i ng A ppel l at e A t t orney L ei gh M
. Ski pper C hi ef Fede r al D efe nder Feder al C om m uni tyD efe nderO ffi ce f or D e f e n d e r A ss o c iatio n o f

P h ilad e lp h ia Feder al C our tD i vi s i on Phi l adel phi a, PA l 9l 06 A t t orney s forA m i ci C ur i ae

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge
. T hi s m att eri s befor e us on thi s court ’ s gr antof the p e tit io n f o r p a n e l re h e a rin g f

iled o n b e h a lf

o f A p p e llan t M e lv in St i ns on s uppor t ed byA m i ci C ur i ae Fede r al Publ i c and C om m uni tyD efe nderO r gani zat i ons foreac h D i s tr i cti n the T hi r d C i r cui t
. B eca us e ourpr i oropi ni on w as vaca t ed w i th the order grant i ng reheari ng , w e i nclude h ere the rel evan tfact s. I.W e have j uri sdi ct i on under18 U
. S. C
. § 3742 and 28 1 U. S
. C. § 1 2 9 1
. “ We e x e r c i s e p l e n a ry r e v i e w o v e r q u e s t i o n s o f l a w, s uch as w hethera cr i m e i s a cr i m e of v i ol ence . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. H u ll , 4 5 6 F
. 3 d 1 3 3 , 1 3 7 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ). 3 St i ns on, w ho w as arr es t ed byl ocal pol i ce i n a P h ilad e lp h ia b a r p u rsu a n t to a n a rre st w a rra n t f o r f a ili n g to a p p e a r in c o u rt, w a s f

o u n d to b e in p o ss e ss io n o f 2 3 g las s v ials of coc ai ne bas e, t ot al i ng appr oxi m at el y1. 5 gr ams, and a . 357 M agnum re vol ver . T her eaf t er , St i ns on pl ed gui l tyt o pos s es s i on w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e b a s e in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 841( a) ( 1) , us i ng and ca rry i ng a fi r earm dur i ng a drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 924( c) ( 1) , and pos s es s i on of a f ir e a rm b ya c o n v ic te d f

e lo n in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ). T he pr es ent ence i nves t i gat i on r eport( “PSR ”) found St i ns on t o be a c ar eeroffe nderunderthe 2006 U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes bas ed on hi s 1998 convi ct i on for d istrib u tio n o f

a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e a n d h is 1 9 9 4 c o n v ictio n in Penns y l vani a for“s i m pl e as s aul t
. ” The PS R al s o not ed that S tin s o n h a d b e e n c o n v ic te d in P e n n s y lv a n ia o f re s is tin g a rr e s t. T he D i s tr i ctC our tagr eed thatSt i ns on w as a ca r eeroffe nderand, as a r es ul t , gave St i ns on an enha nced of fens e l evel of 32, but deduct ed 3 poi nt s foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty . A s a ca r eer offe nder , St i ns on had a c r i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof V I and re c e iv e d a G u id e lin e s ra n g e o f 2 6 2 to 3 2 7 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. H e w a s s e n ten c e d to 2 6 2 m o n th s, th e b o tto m o f th e ra n g e . T h is m att eri s befor e us on St i ns on’ s chal l enge t o thats ent ence . 1 W hen thi s m att erw as or i gi nal l ybefor e us , St i ns on c laim e d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt (1 ) in c o rre c tlyc o n sid e re d h is s i m pl e as s aul tcr i m e t o be a c r i m e of vi ol ence underthe r el evant s ent enci ng pr ovi s i ons and ( 2) di d notr eas onabl yappl ythe 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs w h e n d e te rm in in g h is s e n te n c e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. St i ns on , 5 7 4 F
. 3 d 2 4 4 , 2 4 5 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ), vacated , 2 0 0 9 U .S . A p p . L E X IS 2 1 2 0 2 , a t * 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). S tin so n c o n c e d e d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t h is4 s i m pl e as s aul tconvi ct i on qual i fi ed as a cr i m e of vi ol ence w as r equi r ed af

t erourpr ece denti n U

ni t ed Stat es v. D ors ey , 174 F. 3d 331 ( 3d C i r . 1999) , not i ng i n hi s br i ef that“i tw oul d s eem t o be di ffi cul tt o di s t i ngui s h D ors ey fr om the ca s e atbar , fac tual l y . ” A p p ell an t’ s B r. at 10
. H e a rgu ed o n lythat “[ t] h e D istri ct C o u rt m us tm ake a s peci fi c fi ndi ng as t o w hetherthe off ens e of convi ct i on [i
. e. , the s i m pl e as s aul t ] es t abl i s hed a c r i m e of v io len c e b yre f

e re n c e to th e c h a rg e d c o n d u c t [ in th e a ss a u lt char ge]
. ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at12. W e do notunder s t and St i ns on t o have a r gued thatthe s ent enci ng courts houl d i nqui r e i nt o the s peci fi c conduc tof thi s part i cul aroffe nder , w hi ch w oul d be c o n tra ryto th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s d ire c tio n th a t co u rts m u st a p p ly th e c a te g o ri c a l a p p ro a c h to c la s s if ya p ri o r c o n v ic tio n . See Tayl orv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 495 U
. S. 575, 600- 02 ( 1990)
. U nder thatappr oach, a courtm us tas k “w hetherthe el em ent s of the off ense are of t he type thatw ou l d just i fyi t s [cl assi fi cat i on as a cr i m e of vi ol ence ]
. ” Jam es v. U ni t ed Stat es , 550 U
. S. 192, 202 (20 0 7 ). W h e re a sta tu te c rim in a lize s d if f e re n t k in d s o f

c o n d u c t, so m e o f w h ich w o u ld co n sti tute crim es o f v iolen ce w h il e o thers w oul d not , the courtm us tappl ya modi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach b yw h ich a c o u rt m a ylo o k b e y o n d th e sta tu to rye lem e n ts to det erm i ne the part i cul arpartof the s t atut e underw hi ch the d e f e n d a n t w a s a c tu a lly c o n v ic te d
. See She par d v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 544 U
. S. 13, 26 ( 2005) ; E vans on v. A t t ’ y G en. , 550 F. 3d 284, 2 9 0 -9 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); se e a lso U n itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 544 F. 3d 78 1, 78 6 (7t h C i r. 20 08 ) ( “S uch an ex am i nati on . . . i s ‘ o n ly to d eterm ine w h ich p art of the s tatu te th e d ef

en d an t violated
. ’” ( quot i ng U

n itedS ta tes v . H

o w e ll , 5 3 1 F
. 3 d 6 2 1 , 6 2 3 (8th C ir
. 2 0 0 8 )))
. A ft erthe br i efs i n the or i gi nal appea l w er e fi l ed, the Supr eme C our ti s s ued i t s opi ni on i n B egay v . U ni t ed Stat es , 128 S . C t. 1 5 8 1 (2 0 0 8 ). B egay i nt erpr et ed the A r m ed C ar eer C r i m i nal A ct( “A C C A ”) , 18 U
. S. C
. § 924( e) ( 1) , w hi ch i m pos es a sp e c ial m a n d a to ryp riso n ter m o n a f e lo n w h o u n law f

u lly pos s es s es a fi r earm and w ho has thr ee orm or e pr i orconvi ct i ons forcomm i t t i ng cert ai n drug cr i m es or“vi ol entfel on[i es ]
. ” Un d e rth e AC CA :5 [ T ]h e ter m “ v io len t f

e lo n y ” m e a n s a n yc rim e p u n ish a b le byi m pr i s onm entfora t erm exce edi ng one y ear , oranyact of j uveni l e del i nquencyi nvol vi ng the us e orcarry i ng of a fi r earm , kni fe, ordes truct i ve devi ce thatw oul d be puni s habl e byi m pr i s onm entfors uch t erm i f comm i t t ed b ya n a d u lt, th a t – ( i ) has as an el ementthe us e, att empt ed us e, orthr eat ened us e of phy s i cal for ce a gai ns tthe per s on of another ; or ( i i ) i s bur gl ary , ar s on, orext or t i on, i nvol ves us e of exp l osi ves, or ot herw i se i nv olves cond uct that pr esent s a s e ri o u s p o te n tia l r is k o f p h y s ic a l in

ju ry to a n o th e r . . . . 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (e )( 2 )( B ). B egay focus ed on the meani ng of the l at t er cl ause, i
. e. , “or ot herw i se i nv olves cond uct that pr esent s a s er i ous pot ent i al r i s k of phy s i cal i nj uryt o another , ” w hi ch has been c al l ed “the r es i dual cl aus e. ” See 128 S. C t
. at1586. I n ouror i gi nal opi ni on w e dec l i ned t o addr es s the ef fec t of B egay o n the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ch ara cterizati o n o f S ti n so n ’s convi ct i on fors i m pl e as s aul tas a cr i m e of vi ol ence under U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .1 (a ), re a so n in g th a t itw a s “ a n iss u e th a t w o u ld benef i tfr om i ni t i al br i efi ng and expl or at i on befor e a tr i al j udge [i n l i ghtof the s ubs equentdeci s i on i n B egay ]
. ” St i ns on , 574 F .3 d a t 2 4 6 . W e n e v e rth e les s a f f irm e d th e se n ten c e o n th e b a sis that r esi st i ng arr est , of w hich Sti nson w as al so con vict ed, w as a cri m e of v i olence un der the S entenci ng G uidel i nes. T her eaf t er , anotherpanel of thi s courtdeci ded the i s s ue of the cha r act er i zat i on of “s i m pl e as s aul t ” thatw e had de cl i ned t o r eac h i n St i ns on and hel d that“an i nt ent i onal orknow i ng v i o l a t i o n o f

th e [ P e n n s y l v a n i a s i mp l e a s s a u l ts t a tu t e ] i s a c r i me of vi ol ence underU
. S. S. G
. § 4B 1. 2( a) ( 2)
. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 587 F. 3d 203, 212 ( 3d C i r . 2009)
. U nderthe Penns y l vani a s i m pl e as s aul ts t atut e, a per s on i s gui l tyw ho
“ a ttem p ts to c a u se o r in ten tio n a lly , k n o w in g ly , o r re c k les sly c a u s e s b o d ily in

ju ry to a n o th e r.” 1 8 P a . C o n s . S ta t. A n n . § 2701( a) ( 2)
. A l though the cr i m i nal i nform at i on char ged J ohns on w i th i nt ent i onal and know i ng conduct , the Johns on courtw as6 unabl e t o deci de w hetherJ ohns on’ s s i m pl e as s aul tconvi ct i on w as a cr i m e of vi ol ence beca us e i tw as uncl ear , “bas ed on the i nform at i on al one, w hetherJ ohns on actual l yadmi t t ed t o act i ng i nt ent i onal l yorknow i ngl y . ” I d. In li g h t of

the G o v ern m en t’ s pos i t i on “thatr eckl es s conduct , s t andi ng al one, i s notthe type of purpos eful conductthatcan c ons t i tut e a c r i m e of vi ol ence under § 4B 1. 2( a) ( 2) ’ s r es i dual cl aus e, ” w e vac at ed J ohns on’ s s ent ence a n d re m a n d e d to th e s e n te n c in g c o u rt
. I d. at210. W e i ncl uded a r emi nderthatthe Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Sh epa rd for ecl os ed the courtfr om i nqui r i ng i nt o the fa ct s under l y i ng the ear l i erconvi ct i on butr equi r ed the courtt o det erm i ne the partof the Penns y l vani a s i m pl e as s aul ts t atut e t o w hi ch J ohns on pl ed g u ilty. I d. at209. I n t hi s cas e, as i n Johns on , the r ecor d fai l s t o s how the p art of P en n sy lvan ia’s si m p le assa u ltstatu te on w h ich S ti n so n ’s 1 9 9 4 c o n v ictio n w a s b a se d . W e th e re f o re tu rn f

ro m th e sim p le as s aul ti s s ue t o anal y ze i ns t ead w hetherSt i ns on’ s convi ct i on for r es i s t i ng arr es tqual i fi es as a ca t egor i cal cr i m e of vi ol ence . I f s o, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n denomi nat i ng St i ns on a ca r eer o ff en d er. II. I n hi s m ot i on forpanel r ehea r i ng, St i ns on r ai s es thr ee c h a llen g e s to h is s e n ten c e . H e a rg u e s th a t th e P e n n sy lv a n ia re s is tin g a rr e s t s ta tu te , 1 8 P a . C o n s . S ta t. A n n . § 5 1 0 4 , is no t a ca tego ri ca l cri m e o f v iolen ce af ter B egay ; th at th e c o u rt s houl d nothave a ffi r m ed the ca r eeroffe nders ent ence bas ed on St i ns on’ s pr i orconvi ct i on forr es i s t i ng arr es t ; and thatthe court ’ s hol di ng thatr es i s t i ng arr es ti s a cr i m e of vi ol ence i s at odds w i th U

ni t ed Stat es v. H

opki ns , 5 7 7 F
. 3 d 5 0 7 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ). W e turn t o co nsi der these argum ents
. U nd er the U nit ed S t at es Sen t encing G uidel i nes: T he t erm “cr i m e of vi ol ence ” means anyoffe ns e under fe d era l or stat e law , p u n isha b le byim p ri so n m en t fo r a ter m e x c e e d in g o n e y e a r, th a t –7 ( 1) has as an el ementthe us e, att empt ed us e, or thr eat ened us e of phy s i cal for ce a gai ns tthe per s on of another , or ( 2) i s bur gl aryof a dw el l i ng, ar s on, orext or t i on, inv o lves u se o f e x p losive s, o r other w is e i nvolves conduct thatpr es ent

s a s er i ous pot ent i alr is k of physi cal i njury to a no ther. U
. S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual ( “U
. S. S. G
. ”) § 4B 1. 2( a) ( 2006) ( emphasi s added)
. T he def i ni t i on i n the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes i s s uffi ci ent l ys i m i l art o the def i ni t i on of a vi ol ent f e lo n yu n d e r th e A C C A th a t au th o rityin terp re tin g o n e is g e n e ra lly a p p lie d to th e o th e r. See H opki ns , 5 7 7 F .3 d a t 5 1 1
. T h e re f o re , w e a re g u id e d b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n in B egay a n a l y z i n g th e t e r m “ v i o l e n tf e l o n y ” u n d e rth e AC CA
. T h at de cisi o n also u n d erli es o u r an aly sis of S ti n so n ’s chall eng e t o the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s charact eri zat i on of h i m as a careeroff

end er. U nd er the S entenci ng G uidel i nes, S t i nson i s a car eeroffe nderi f he: ( 1) w as atl eas tei ght een y ear s ol d w hen the i ns t antoffe ns e occ urr ed; ( 2) the i ns t antoffe ns e of c onvi ct i on i s a cr i m e of vi ol ence ora contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e; and ( 3) he “ha s atl eas ttw o pr i orfel onyconvi ct i ons of ei thera cr i m e of vi ol ence ora contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e. ” U
. S. S. G
. § 4B 1. 1( a) (20 0 6 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e f ir st tw o req u ir em en ts are s at i s fi ed as St i ns on w as atl eas t18 y ear s ol d and the i ns t ant o f f e n s e o f c o n v i c t i o n w a s a c o n tr o l l e d s u b s t a n c e o f f e n s e . We ther efor e foc us on the thi r d r equi r ement : St i ns on’ s pr i or con vict i on s. St i ns on has pr i orconvi ct i ons fordi s tr i but i on of a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e , s im p le a s s a u lt, a n d re s is tin g a rr e s t. St i ns on does notchal l enge thathi s 1998 convi ct i on for di s tr i but i on of a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance qual i fi es as a pr i or convi ct i on forcar eeroffe nderpurpos es . I n l i ghtof our eli m ination o f sim p le assa u ltat th is st ag e, i f w e a re to a ff irm St i ns on’ s s ent ence , as the G overnm entur ges , w e mustfi nd that r es i s t i ng arr es tunderPenns y l vani a l aw i s a cr i m e of vi ol ence .8 I n Tayl orv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 495 U
. S. 575 ( 1990) , the Supr eme C our tcons i der ed how pr i orconvi ct i ons s houl d be anal y zed f

orcar eeroffe nderpurpos es . A ft ercar eful c o n s i d e r a t i o n , i tc o n c l u d e d th a ta c o u r ts h o u l d a p p l y a cat egor i cal appr oach, and “l ook onl yt o the fa ctof convi ct i on and the s t atut orydefi ni t i on of the pr i oroffe ns e. ” I d. a t6 0 2
. We thus l ook t o t he s t atut orydefi ni t i on of r es i s t i ng arr es tunder P e n n s y l v a n i a l a w. T h e P e n n sy lv a n ia C o d e sta tes th a t: A per s on comm i t s a mi s demeanorof the s econd de gr ee i f, w i th t he i nt entof pr event i ng a publ i c s ervantfr om eff ect i ng a l aw ful arr es tordi s char gi ng anyotherduty , the per s on [1] cr eat es a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of bodi l yi nj uryt o the publ i c s ervantorany one el s e, or[2] empl oy s m eans j us t i fy i ng orr equi r i ng s ubs t ant i al for ce t o over come t he r es i s t ance . 1 8 P a. C o n s. S tat
. A n n . § 5 1 0 4 (20 0 6 ). T he Penns y l vani a s t atut e s peci fi es tw o types of conduc t byw hi ch a de fenda ntcoul d r es i s tarr es t
. O ne s peci fi ed conduc t i s w hen the def

endantr es i s t s arr es tby“cr eat [i ng] a s ubs t ant i al ri s k o f b o d ily in

ju ry” to th e o f

f ic e r o r a n o th e r. I

d. T h is is “c o n d u ct th at pre sen ts a seriou s p o tential ri sk o f p h y sical i n jury t o another , ” and thus fi t s s quar el yw i thi n the def i ni t i on of a c ri m e o f v io le n c e in th e re s id u a l c la u s e o f U .S .S .G . § 4B 1. 2( a) ( 2) ( 2006)
. T he others peci fi ed conduc tof r es i s t i ng arr es tunderthe Penns y l vani a s t atut e i s the ac t i on of a de fenda nt w h o “ e m p lo y s m e a n s ju stif y in g o r re q u irin g su b sta n tial f o rc e to o v erc o m e the resist an ce . ” 1 8 P a. C o n s. S tat
. A n n . § 5 1 0 4
. In or dert o as cert ai n w hetherthi s conductfi t s w i thi n the G ui del i nes d e f in iti o n o f a “ c rim e o f

v io len c e ,” w e m u st f

o c u s o n w h e th e r it al s o fal l s w i thi n t he r es i dual cl aus e of U
. S. S. G
. § 4B 1. 2( a) , that i s w hetheri t“i nvol ves conductthatpr es ent s a s er i ous pot ent i al r i s k of phy s i cal i nj uryt o another
. ” U
. S. S. G
. § 4B 1. 2( a) ( 2) (20 0 6 ). J us t i ce Bre y er ’ s opi ni on i n B egay p ro v id e s n e e d e d c lar ity9 o n th e re sid u a l cla u se . A s e x p lain e d th e re , the c o n d u c t f a lls w ith in th e re sid u a l cla u se if it p o se s a d e g re e o f

risk th a t is s i m i l art o t he degr ee of

r i s k pos ed bythe enumer at ed off ens es ( “bur gl aryof a dw el l i ng, ar s on, ext or t i on [or ] i nvol ves us e of e x p lo s iv e s ” ), a n d is s im ila r i n k in d to th o s e o f f e n s e s . B egay , 1 2 8 S . C t. a t 1 5 8 6
. B egay f u rth e r e x p lain s th a t an o f f e n se is sim ilar in k in d to th e e n u m e ra ted o f f e n se s if it “typ ica lly i nvol ve[s ] purpos eful , vi ol ent , and aggr es s i ve conduc t
. ” I d. (in ter n a l q u o tatio n s a n d c itatio n s o m itt e d ). T h is le a d s u s to i nqui r e w hetherthe s econd s peci fi ed conduc ti n the Penns y l vani a r es i s t i ng arr es ts t atut e, i
. e. , “empl oy [i ng] m eans j us t i fy i ng orr equi r i ng s ubs t ant i al for ce t o over come t he r es i s t ance , ” 18 Pa. C ons . St at
. A nn. § 5104, i nvol ves “purpos eful , vi ol ent , and aggr es s i ve conduc t , ” B egay , 1 2 8 S . C t. at 15 8 6 (i n terna l qu o tat ion s an d cit ati o n s o m itted). W e conc l ude thati tdoes
. Such conductpos es as gr eator gr eat era r i s k as bur gl aryorext or t i on. U nl i ke thos e enumer at ed offe ns es , r es i s t i ng arr es tnece s s ar i l yi nvol ves confr ont i ng the author i tyof a pol i ce of

fi cerw ho i s l i kel yarm ed and c har ged w i th d e f e n d i n g th e p u b l i c . B e c a u s e th e p o l i c e o f f i c e ri s d u tybound t o eff

ectuat e the arr es t , the off ens e enge nder s a s i gni fi cant r i s k o f c o n f l i c ta n d , c o rr e s p o n d i n g l y, a s i g n i f i c a n tr i s k o f

i n j u ry. R es i s t i ng arr es tby“empl oy [i ng] m eans j us t i fy i ng or r equi r i ng s ubs t ant i al for ce t o over come” i s , bydefi ni t i on, p u rp o s e f u l, a g g re s s iv e a n d v io le n t. 1 8 P a . C o n s . S ta t. A n n . § 5 1 0 4
. I ti s “ p u rp o s e f

u l ” b e c a u s e u n d e rth e s t a tu t e th e c r i me m us thave be en “w i th the i nt ent of pr event i ng a publ i c s ervant f ro m e f f e c tin g a la w f

u l a rr e s t o r d is c h a rg in g a n yo th e r d u ty . . .

. ” I d. (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h e re f u sa l to y ield to a p u b lic o ff ici al’s ex erc ise o f a u tho ri tycre ates a su b stan ti al ri sk o f in jury and i s atl eas tas aggr es s i ve and vi ol entas bur gl aryof a dw el l i ng. W hen “e m pl oy [i ng] m eans j us t i fy i ng orr equi r i ng s ubs tant i alf

or ce to o v e rc o m e ,” a n a rre ste e is k n o w in g ly e n g a g in g in c o n f

lic t w ith a n o th e r. I

d. (em p h asis ad d ed ). St i ns on count er s thatconductthatm ayfal l w i thi n the se c o n d c lau se o f

th e P e n n sy lv a n ia r e sis tin g a rre st s tatu te c o u ld p e rm it co n v ictio n f

o r p a ss iv e re sis tan c e , b e h a v io r th a t m e e ts10 nei therof B egay ’ s s t a n d a r d s o f v i o l e n c e a n d a g g r e s s i v e n e s s . To su p p o rt h is e x p a n siv e v iew o f th e sta tu te, S tin so n re lies h e a v ily o n a s in g le c a s e , C om m onw eal th v. Thom ps on , 922 A
. 2d 926 (Pa. S up er. C t
. 20 07 ). A l tho ug h d efen dan ti n thatcase con t end ed thatshe used “passi ve resi st ance” t o the officer s’ att empt s t o pl ace heri n cus t odyaft ers he and he rhus band “i nt er l ocked thei rarm s and l egs and r efus ed t o r es pond t o the [off i cer ’ s ] verbal comm ands t o r el eas e thei rhands , ” 922 A
. 2d at 927, i ti s evi dentthatthe Penns y l vani a Super i orC our tfocus ed on otherconduct
. T he courtl ooked t o “the s t atut oryl anguage of s ect i on 5104 cr i m i nal i zi ng r es i s t ance behavi orthatr equi r es s ubs t ant i al for ce t o s ur m ount
. ” I d. at928. T he ques t i on w hethera def endantcomm i tt ed the off ens e, i
. e. , gui l tyornot , m us tbe di s t i ngui s hed fr om the ques t i on w hetherthe Penns y l vani a off ens e i s a ca t egor i cal cr i m e of vi ol ence . T he def

endanti n Thom

ps on w as har dl ypas s i ve as s he ar gued. She “appr oache d [the off i cer ] , y el l i ng and w avi ng her h an d s in a n att em p t t o sca re the h o rse [ o n w h ich h e w as riding ] .

. . [and] hi tthe hor s e’ s nos e, caus i ng the ani m al t o r earup. ” I d. at927. M or eover , the def endanti n Thom

ps on “ stru g g l[ e d ] w ith the off i cer s fora fe w m i nut es . ” I d. T hus , T hom ps on’ s behavi or s quar el yfi tw i thi n t he Penns y l vani a r es i s t i ng arr es ts t atut e. T he Penns y l vani a court s have notcons trued the r es i s t i ng a rre st s tatu te to c o v e r p a ss iv e re sis tan c e . P a ss iv e re sis tan c e is th e a n tith e sis o f

a n a c t o f v io len c e . P ro tes to rs w h o g a th e r in lar g e n u m b e rs o r in sm a ll g ro u p s to su p p o rt a c a u se , w h e th e r it be ani m al r i ght s , oppos i t i on t o abort i on, m or e vi gor ous envi r onm ent al enfor cement , orthe conf l i cti n A fghani s t an, and w ho pas s i vel yr es i s tw hen the author i t i es s eek t o di s s ol ve the gr oup, ar e notengagi ng i n vi ol entoraggr es s i ve ac t i on. A l tho ug h the l ang uag e of P enn sy l van i a’s res i st i ng arr est s t atut e “doe s notr equi r e the aggr es s i ve us e of f or ce s uch as s tr i ki ng orki cki ng of the off i cer , ” C om m onw eal th v. Mi l l er , 475 A
. 2d 145, 146 ( Pa. Super
. C t
. 1984) , w e have found no dec i s i on underPenns y l vani a l aw thataff i r m ed a c onvi ct i on forr es i s t i ng arr es tbas ed on a de fenda nt ’ s i nact i on ors i m pl y“l y i ng dow n” or
“ g o in g lim p .” C o u n se l ar g u in g b e f o re u s o n th is a p p e a l co u ldW e nee d notdw el l on St i ns on’ s ar gum en tthatour 2 c o n c lu sio n th a t re sis tin g a rre st is a c rim e o f v io len c e is co n tra ryto ouropi ni on i n H

opki ns , 5 7 7 F. 3d at515, w her e w e hel d that second deg ree m i sdem eano r “es cape” pu rs uan tt o 1 8 P a. C on s. St at
. A nn. § 5121 does notqual i fyas a cr i m e of vi ol ence forcar eer o f f e n d e r p u rp o se s. T h e in f o rm a tio n to w h ich H o p k in s p led g u ilty charg ed thathe “unl aw ful l yr emove[d] hi m s el f fr om offi ci al det ent i on orfai l [ed] to return t o offi ci al det ent i on fol l ow i ng te m p o ra ry le a v e g ra n te d f o r a s p e c if

ic p u rp o s e o r l im ite d p e ri o d .” 577 F. 3d at 513. W e hel d that m i s demeanor es cape “i s co n d uct m at er i al l yl es s vi ol entand aggr es s i ve th an the enumer at ed offe ns es . ” Id

. a t 5 1 4 . S u c h is n o t th e c a se w ith re sis tin g a rre st. 11 cit e to n o n e in re sp o n se to o u r qu esti o n s. In f ac t, there are s ever al cas es i n w hi ch Penns y l vani a court s have r ecogni zed that re sis tin g a rre st d o e s n o t ex ten d to “ m in o r sc u f f le[ s] in c id e n t to an arr es t
. ” C om m onw eal th v. R ai ney , 426 A
. 2d 1148, 1150 ( Pa. S u p e r. C t. 19 8 1 ); s ee al s o Mi l l er , 475 A
. 2d at146 ( “The i nt ent of [Penns y l vani a’ s r es i s t i ng arr es ts t atut e] i s ‘ t o confi ne the offe ns e t o for ci bl e r es i s t ance thati nvol ves s om e s ubs t ant i al dangert o t he per s on. ’ ” ( quot i ng P a. C r i m es C ode Ann. § 5104 ( 1974) )
. I ti s onl yw hen a de fenda ntw ho w as “s truggl i ng and

2 pul l i ng, tr y i ng t o getaw ayfr om [the arr es t i ng offi cerw ho w as phy s i cal l yr es tr ai ni ng hi m ] , ” thathe w as convi ct ed of r es i s t i ng a rr e s t, a n d s u c h c a s e s a re ra re . C om m onw eal th v. Trego , 33 Pa. D
. & C
. 3 d 3 5 2 , 3 5 3 (P a. C t. C o m . P l. 1 9 8 4 ). H avi ng s at i s fi ed our s el ves thatthe cr i m e of r es i s t i ng a r r e s ti n P e n n s y l v a n i a d o e s n o te n c o mp a s s p a s s i v e r e s i s t a n c e , we m u st d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e “ o rd in a ry ” o r “ typ ica l” f a c t sc e n a rio u n d e rly in g re sis tin g a rre st c o n v ictio n s in P e n n sy lv a n ia is s uffi ci ent l y“purpos eful , vi ol ent , and aggr es s i ve” t o qual i fyas crim es o f v iolen ce af

ter B egay . See Begay , 128 S. C t
. at1586 ( not i ng thatthe enumer at ed cr i m es al l “typi cal l y ” i nvol ve p u rp o se f u l, vio len t, an d a g g re ss iv e c o n d u c t); s ee al s o Jam es v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 0 U
. S
. 1 9 2 , 2 0 8 (20 0 7 ) (“[T ]he p rop er inq u iry i s w hetherthe conduc tencompas s ed bythe el ement s of the offe ns e, i n t he or di narycas e, pr es ent s a s er i ous pot ent i al r i s k of i n j u r yt o a n o th e r ” c o m p a r a b l e t o th e e n u m e r a t e d o f f e n s e s )
. WeForthe r eas ons s etfor th, w e r ej ectS ti n so n ’s cont ent i on 3 that w e w oul d benef

i t fr om fur ther br i efi ng or r ecor d devel opm ent a t th e trial le v e l. 12 concl ude thatthe “or di nary ” ca s e meet s thi s defi ni t i on. O ur exami nat i on of the s t atut e and the Penns y l vani a ca s es i nt erpr et i ng i tdemonstr at e w hythati s s o. W e ther efor e af

fi r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s hol di ng that S tin so n w a s a c a re e r o f f e n d e r, b u t w e d o so o n th e a ltern a te gr ound t hathi s pr i orconvi ct i on forr es i s t i ng arr es t , a ca t egor i cal c rim e o f v io len c e , p ro v id e d th e se c o n d p re d ica te o f f e n se to h is d esig n ati o n as a ca ree r of fe n d er. 3