The Honor able Patric k J . Dug g an, United States District Judge f or th e E as tern District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0342n.06 No. 08-2438 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. MI NI ONCA RTE R, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

BEF ORE: MARTI

N and GRI FF I

N, Circuit J udg es; and DU GGAN, D istrict J udg e. * GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg e. Def endant Minion Carter ap peals the district c ourt’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines’s c are er of

fende r enha

nceme nt to his se ntence following his ple a of guilty to distributi on
o f c o ca i n e b as e. Be cau s e t h e go v ern m en tco n ce d es th at as s au l t i n g, b at t er i n g, wo un d i n g, re s i s t i n g, obstructing , or enda

ng eringa pol i ce of

fice r under

Mich. Comp. L aws § 750.81d(1) is not
c a te g o r ic a ll y

a c r im e o f v io le n c e , see United States v. Mosle y , 575 F.3d 603 ( 6th Cir. 2009), we
vacate Carter ’s sentenc e and r emand f or re sentenc ing.

I. I n 2008, Carter pleade d g uilty to distributi ng coca ine base
. See21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) . AfterNo. 08-2438

United States v. Carter

- 2 - finding that Carter was a car eer offe nder, seeU.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, the district cour t calculated an initial Guidelines rang e of 188 to 235 months, which it amende d to 140 to 175 months after g rantingthe g overnme nt’s motion fo r

s u b stantial assistance unde r U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. The district cour t sentence d Carter to 140 months i n prison. I n explaining its care er- offe nder de termination, the district court he ld, over Car ter’s
o b j ec t i o n s , t h at C ar t er ’s t wo p ri o r s t at e c o urt c o n v i c t i o n s fo r a s s au l t i n g, b at t er i n g, wo un d i n g, resisting , obstructing , or enda ng eringa police office r under Mich. Comp. L aws § 750.81d(1) we re
c ri me s of vi ol ence. Cart e r d id n ot o bje c t to the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s a dd iti on a l c on c lus ion that hi s pr e vio us c on vic tio n o f b re akin g and e nte ri ng an oc c up ie d dwe lli ng wi th int e nt t o c omm it l arc e ny in violation of Mich. Comp. L aws § 750.110(1) was a crime of violence. B ased upon the se ruling s, the district court ruled that Carter w as elig ible for the c are er of fende r enha

nceme nt under U.S. S
. G. § 4B1.1, which applies whe n “(1) the def endant wa s at least eig hteen y ea rs o ld at the time [he]
c omm itt e d th e ins ta

nt o ff e ns e of c on vic tio n; (2 ) the ins tant of fe ns e of c on vic tio n is a fe lony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance of fense ; and (3) the defe ndant has at least two prior fe lony convictions of either a crime of vi olence or a controlled subst ance offe nse.” § 4B 1.1(a)
. Carter timely appea led. II. The sing le issue ra ised in this appeal is wh et her Car ter’s c onvictions under Mich. Comp. L aws § 7 50 .8 1d (1 ) a

re c ri me s o f v io len ce for purp os e s o f t

he c are e r o ff

e nd e r e nh anc e me nt. Followingbriefing , the g overnme nt filed a J uly 23, 2009, letter of supplemental authority advisingNo. 08-2438

United States v. Carter

- 3 - of t his court’s de cision in United States v. Mosle y . Mosley held that a violation of § 750.81d(1) was
no t c a te g or ic a lly

a c ri me of

violen c e , b ut r a the r, “ c on ta in[e d] at le a st two c a te g or ie s– tho se violations, on the one hand, involving an individual who phy sically injures an of

fice r b ecause he ‘assa ults, batters, [or] wounds’ the of fice r, and those, on the other ha nd, involving an individual who ‘obstructs’ a

n office r throug h ‘a know ing f ailure to comply with a

lawful c ommand[.] ’” 575 F .3d at 607 (citations om itted). Be cause we c oncluded in Mosley that the latte r s ub c a te g or y is n ot a c ri me of violence , id . at 607-08, we vacated M osley ’s s entenc e and rema nded the case to the district court to allow the g overnme nt “to show whethe r the indictment, the plea ag ree ment, the plea c olloquy or ‘compa rable j u dicial re cord[s]’ show that Mosley ‘nec essar ily

admitted’ committing a

crime of violence.” Id
. at 6 0 8 (q u o t i n g Shepard v. U nited States , 544 U.S. 13, 26 ( 2005)). We explained that

“ [i]t ma y . . . tu rn out th a t [ Mosle y ] wa s c on vic te d f or ‘a ssa ult [ing ]’ a

n o ff ic e r, no t f or fa ili ngto comply with an offic er’ s lawful command.” Mosley , 575 F.3d at 608. L ike Mosley , the district court in the pre sent ca se er roneously resolved the crime of

violence issue at the cat egoric al stag e under Taylor v. United States , 495 U.S. 575, 602 (1990), consistent with the position advocated by the g overnme nt. The gove rnment admit s that “[t] he re cord doe s not contain information from the ty pes of documents t hat m ay be consulted under Sh e pa rd to determine what subcateg ory

of cr ime was involved in [ Carter ’s] prior resisting a nd obstructing conviction(s)” and “c oncede s that [C arte r’s] se ntence . . . should be vacated and . . . r emande d to the district court for rese ntencing in lig ht of Mosley .” (Citation omitted.) As in Mosley , the g overnme nt on remand wi ll h ave the op po rt

un ity to a rgue that th e re le va

nt Sh e pa rd do c ume nts de mon str a te tha t on e or bo thNo. 08-2438

United States v. Carter

- 4 - of Carte r’s c onvictions under Mich. Comp. L aws § 750.81d(1) constitute a cr ime of violence
. III
. For these re asons, we va cate Carter ’s sentenc e and r emand f or re sentenc ing.