NOT P 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. 09- 4519

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J OHN KI NG, al s o know n as “PoorJ ohn” J O H N R U S S E L L K IN G , S R ., 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 1- 07- cr - 00479- 013) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n . Jo h n E . Jo n es, II I Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember13, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: Sept ember16, 2010)

OP I NI ON2

S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge . Jo h n K ing p led g u il tyto o n e c o u n t of u se o f a co m m u n icati o n fa cil ity(a te le p h o n e ) t o f

a c ilita te a f

e lo n yd ru g tr a f

f ic k in g o f f e n s e in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 843( b) . H e appe al s hi s s ent ence . I. I n hi s s ent enci ng m emora ndum , K i ng chal l enged the Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on Re p o r t ’ s ( “ P S R” ) r e c o mm e n d a t i o n th a th e b e c o n s i d e r e d a c a r e e ro f f e n d e ru n d e rU. S . S . G. § 4 B 1 .1 . H e a rg u e d th a t o n e o f th e tw o p re d ica te o f

f e n se s th e G o v e rn m e n t id e n tifie d , h is 1995 Penns y l vani a convi ct i on fors i m pl e as s aul t , s houl d notbe cl as s i fi ed as a cr i m e of vi ol ence underU . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 2( a) beca us e i ndi vi dual s can be convi ct ed underthat st atute for r eckles s act s. A “cr i m e of vi ol ence ” i s defi ned i n § 4B 1. 2 i n tw o w ay s : “anyoffe ns e under fede r al ors t at e l aw , puni s habl e byi m pr i s onm entfora t erm exce edi ng one y ear , that- - ( 1) 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 tt he 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, i nvol ves us e of expl os i ves , orot herw i s e 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 in ju ry to a n o th e r.” T h e D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t K in g ’s c o n v ictio n u n d e r th e P e n n sy lv a n ia s im p le assa u ltstatu te qu ali fied as a crim e o f v iolen ce u n d er § 4 B 1 . 2 (a)(1). T h e D istri ct C o u rt ther efor e dee m ed K i ng a ca r eeroffe nderand ca l cul at ed hi s s ent enci ng r ange unde rtheT h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 3231. T hi s courthas j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3742 and 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . No t a b l y , we h a v e h e l d th a t1 8 U. S . C. § 1 6 ( a ) a n d U. S . S . G. 2 § 2L 1. 2, bot h of w hi ch empl oyl angua g e iden t i cal t o thati n § 4 B 1 .2 (a )(1 ) in d e f

in in g a c rim e o f v io len c e , a lso re q u ire “ ‘in ten t to us e for ce. ’ ” U

nited S tates v. O t ero , 5 0 2 F . 3 d 3 3 1 , 3 3 5 (3d C ir . 2007) ( as s es s i ng § 2L 1. 2 and quot i ng P opalv. G onz al es , 416 F. 3d 2 4 9 , 2 5 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (a ss e ss in g § 1 6 (a ))); see al so U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 c m t. n .1 (B )( iii) . 3 Feder al Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( “G ui del i nes ”) as 140 t o 175 m onths . K i ng w as su b seq u en tl ysen tenc ed to f o rty -eigh t m o n ths o f im p ri so n m en t, w h ich w as th e statuto ry m axi m um . H e t i m el yappea l ed. 1 O u r rev iew o f w h ethe r a c ri m e c o n sti tutes a c ri m e o f v iolen ce is plen ary 

### . See Uni te d Statesv . Stins on , 592 F. 3d 460, 462 n. 1 ( 3d Ci r . 2010) . Aft e r Ki ng’ s s e nt e nc i ng, we he l d that“a c onvi ct i on form er e r eckl es s nes s cannotcons t i tut e a c r i m e of vi ol ence ” f o r p u rp o s e s o f

d e te rm in in g a d e f

e n d a n t’ s c a re e r o f

f e n d e r s ta tu s u n d e r t h e G u id e lin e s . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Lee , -- - F .3 d -- -- , 2 0 1 0 W L 2 7 5 7 3 4 0 , a t * 1 7 (3 d C ir . J u ly 1 4 , 2 0 1 0 ). T h a t h o ld in g a p p lies to b o th d e f in iti o n s o f

c rim e o f v io len c e , i. e ., w h e th e r th e p re d ica te o f f e n s e is a n a lyze d u n d e r § 4 B 1 .2 (a )( 1 ) o r § 4 B 1 .2 (a )( 2 ). See i d. ; s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. P ars on , 9 5 5 F .2 d 8 5 8 , 8 6 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (“ U se o f p h y sic a l f

o rc e is a n in ten tio n a l ac t, an d there fo re the firstp ron g o f [ § 4 B 1 . 2 (a)] req u ir es sp ec ifi c inten t t o u se f o rce . ”). 2 I n a r ece ntdeci s i on cons i der i ng the Penns y l vani a s i m pl e as s aul ts t atut e, w e s t at ed thatal though “an i nt ent i onal orknow i ng vi ol at i on of [thats t atut e] i s a cr i m e of vi ol enceW e ar e di s turbed that , i n i t s br i ef, the G overnm entnei ther 3 ( 1) acknow l edged t o thi s panel i t s form erpos i t i on i n Johns on that rec k less ac ts can n o t con sti tute crim es o f v iolen ce u n d er § 4B 1. 2( a) ( 2) , nor( 2) ci t ed t o the Johns on opi ni on, even though K i ng’ s br i ef di s cus s ed thatcas e atl ength. A ddi t i onal l y , w e not e that aft er the opi ni ons i n Johns on and Lee ourdeci s i on i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. D ors ey , 1 7 4 F . 3 d 3 3 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) , u p o n wh i c h th e Di s tr i c tCo u r tr e l i e d , i s n o l o n g e rg o o d l a w. 4 un der U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 2(a) (2) [, ]” that Penn sy l van i a st atute al so m akes i l l egal r eckles s a c ts . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 5 8 7 F .3 d 2 0 3 , 2 1 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). T h is p re se n ts 3 d if f icu ltyf o r f e d e ra l co u rts f

a c e d w ith se n ten c in g a d e f e n d a n t w ith a P e n n sy lv a n ia s im p le as s aul tconvi ct i on beca us e w hen dec i di ng w hetheran off ens e i s a cr i m e of vi ol ence under § 4B 1. 2( a) , court s ar e gene r al l ypr ohi bi t ed fr om “det erm i n[i ng] w hetherthe ac tual conductof the i ndi vi dual defe ndantcons t i tut ed a purpos eful , vi ol entand aggr es s i ve ac t . ” Id . at208 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . W e expl ai ned i n Johns on t hat

“ [ 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 cons t i tut e cr i m es of vi ol ence w hi l e other s w oul d not , a courtm ayl ook bey ond the s t atut oryel ement s t o det erm i ne the part i cul arpartof the s t atut e of w hi ch the def endant w as actual l yconvi ct ed. ” Id . W h e n th e G o v e rn m e n t se e k s to p ro v e th a t a p re d ica te o f f e n se th a t h a s b e e n tried b ya ju ryq u a lifie s a s a c rim e o f v io len c e , “a c o u rt is ‘g e n e ra lly l i m i t ed t o exami ni ng the s t atut orydefi ni t i on, [the] char gi ng document , ’ ” id . ( quot i ng Shepar d v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 544 U . S. 13, 16 ( 2005) ) , and the “j uryi ns truct i ons [t o s ee w hetherthe j uryw as ] actual l yr equi r ed . . . t o fi nd al l the el ement s of [a cr i m e ofT he PSR s t at es thatthe vi ct im o f K ing’ s as s aul t“s t at ed 4 that[K i ng] dr agged [ her ] up the stairs of a r es i dence , j um ped on her , gr abbed he rby the neck, and s truck hers ever al t i m es [, ] ” and th a t th e “ p o lice re p o rt in d ica tes th a t [ K in g ] th e n d ra g g e d th e v ictim t o a bedr o o m , w h er e he a gai n s truck her . ” PSR ¶ 33. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. Si egel , 4 7 7 F .3 d 8 7 , 9 3 -9 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ), w e h e ld th a t a defe ndant w ho pl ed gui l ty t o a pre di cat e offens e i s deemed t o have a d mi t t e d f

a c tu a l a l l e g a t i o n s i n a P S R b y f a i l i n g t o o b

j e c tt o th e m, and thats uch admi s s i ons can be us ed t o det erm i ne w hetherthat offe ns e qual i fi es as a cr i m e of vi ol ence . A l though i tappea r s that K i ng di d not obj ect t o t he fa ctual al l egat i ons above, beca us e K i ng w as convi ct ed af

t era j urytr i al and the r ecor d d o es not s how w hetherthe “f

act s ” di s cussed in the PSR w er e i n evi dence , they ca n n o t be u sed ag ains t him in this co n text. Ind ee d , the ju ry a c q u itt e d K in g o f

a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt.

5 vi ol ence ] i n or dert o convi ctthe def endant [, ] ” Tayl orv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 495 U . S. 575, 602 (19 9 0 ). “The governm entbear s the bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng, bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence , pr i orconvi ct i ons and ca r eeroffe nders t atus . ” U nited S tates v. H

ow ard , 599 F. 3d 269, 271- 72 ( 3d C i r . 2010) ( ci t i ng Mi t chel lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 526 U . S. 314, 330 ( 1999) ) . Fol l ow i ng the Johns on d ec isi o n , itis i m p era ti v e to a sce rt ain w h ethe r K ing ’s Penns y l vani a convi ct i on w as bas ed on i nt ent i onal orr eckl es s conduct . H ow ever , the 4 G overnm entm ade no e ffortt o pr oduce appr opr i at e document s fr om w hi ch the D i s tr i ct C our tm i ghtdi s cern t he partof the Penns y l vani a s i m pl e as s aul ts t atut e underw hi ch K i ng w as convi ct ed. A s w e s t at ed i n Johns on , “w her e the governm enthas the bur den of p ro d u c tio n a n d p e rs u a s io n a s it d o e s o n is s u e s lik e e n h a n c e m e n t o f th e o f f e n s e le v e l . . . , i t s cas e s houl d or di nar i l yhave t o s t and orfal l on the r ecor d i tm akes the fi r s tt i m e ar ound[and i ] ts houl d notnor m al l ybe af for ded a s econd bi t e atthe appl e. ” 587 F. 3d at213 ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. D i ckler , 64 F. 3d 818, 832 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ark s an d cit ati o n s o m itted)). A ccor di ngl y , w e hol d t he D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n tr eat i ng K i ng’ s convi ct i on for sim p le a ss a u lt as a c rim e o f v io len c e . B e c a u se w e w ill re m a n d f o r re se n ten c in g , itis u n n e c e ss a ryto a d d re ss K in g ’s a rg u m e n ts re g a rd in g th e su b sta n tiv e f a irn e ss o f

h is s ent ence . II. Forthe above s t at ed r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e K i ng’ s s ent ence and r emand t o the D i s tr i ctC our tforr es ent enci ng.

6