FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 14 16 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 9- 00 00 8- CR-T-3 3- TGW UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us ROBERT L. MCGILL, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep te m be r 8, 2 01 0) Befo re BLACK, HULL andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:The Arm edCare er Cr im in al Act (AC CA) p res cri be s a 1 5- y ear m an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc e fo r an y

pe rs on who ha s “ th ree p rev io us co nv ic ti on s . . . fora vi ol en t fe lo ny” andpo ss es se s a f ire arm invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g ). 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e)( 1) . Rob ertMcGi ll pl ead edgu il ty to v io la ti ng § 9 22 (g )(1 ), an d i n li gh t o f hi s thr ee p rio r fel on y co nv ic ti on s, the Gov ern m en t as ke d the di st ric t co urt to sen te nc e h im

as a n a rm edcare er cr im in al . The co urt re fu se d, an d t he Gov ern m en t ra is es th is qu es ti on on ap pe al : Was Mc Gil l’s p rio r fel on y po ss es si on of a sh ort-b arre le d s ho tg un a “ vi ol en t fe lo ny” un de r th e ACCA? I. BACKG ROUND Ro be rt M cGil l, a co nv ic te d fe lo n, p le ad edgu il ty to the un la wfu l p os se ss io n of a fi rearm by a felo n u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). Becaus e Mc Gil l h adpre vi ou s fel on y co nv ic ti on s fo r bu rg lary , fal se im pr is on m en t, an d t he un la wfu l p os se ss io n of a sh ort-b arre le d s ho tg un , th e p ro ba ti on off ic er re co m

m en de d tha t h e b e se nt en cedun de r th e ACCA as anarm edcare er cr im in al . A con vi ct ed§ 9 22 (g ) de fen dantis subjec t t o the ACCA’s 15 -y ear m an da to ry

m in im um on ly if he ha s atlea stth ree p rev io us co nv ic ti on s fo r vi ol en t fel on ie s (o r se rio us dru g o ffen se s) co m m it te d o n s ep arat e o ccas io ns . 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e)( 1) . As de fin edby statut e, vi ol en t fe lo ni es in cl ud e an y cri m e, pu ni sh ab le 1
We refe r to the ACCA as it has bee n amende d and codif ied at 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) . 1 2by m or e th ana y ear’s i m pr is on m en t, tha t (i ) “ ha s as anele m en t” th e actua l, at te m pt ed , or thr eat en edus e o f fo rce a ga in stan ot he r pe rs on ; o r (i i) “ is bu rg la ry , ars on , or e xt orti on , in vo lv es us e o f ex pl os iv es , or o th erwi se in vo lv es co nduc t tha t pr es en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ri skof p hysic al in jury to an ot he r.” Id . § 9 24 (e)( 2) (B) (em ph as is ad de d) . McGi ll ob

jecte d t o the pro po se d ACC A enh an cem en t o n t he gro un d t ha t h is po ss es si on of ash ort-b arre le d s ho tg un , invi ol at io n o f Fl or id a la w, di d n otqu al ify as a vi ol en t fe lo ny. He arg ue d t ha t u nd er the Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on inBeg ay 2 v. Un it edSta te s, 5 53 U.S. 13 7 (2 00 8) , po ss es si ng a sh ort-b arre le d s ho tg un di d n ot fal l wi th inth e ACCA’s res idua l “ ot he rwis e” cl au se be cau se th e o ffen se was n ot si mil ar t o t he ex am

pl e cri m es in§ 9 24 (e)( 2) (B)( ii )—n am el y , bu rg la ry , ars on , ex to rti on , andth e unl awfu l u se of e xp lo si ve s. The di stric t co urt ag reedwith M cGil l an d s en te nc edhi m to 41 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Onap pe al , th e Gov ern m en t ar gu es th atbo th Flo rid a an d fe de ral la w (1) di ffer en ti at e sh ort-b arre le d s ho tg un s fr om ord in ary fir earm s; (2) reg ul at e sh ort-b arre le d s ho tg un s i n t he same categ ory as m ach in e g un s, b om

bs , and gr en ad es ; an d (3 ) ou tl aw th em be cau se su chweap on s ar e in he ren tl y da ng ero us ,

McGill conce ded that his burg lary and fa lse-imprisonment offe nses wer e violent 2 felonies. 3ha ve no lawf ul pu rp os e, an d are u se d o nl y forcri m in al pu rp os es ; an d, the refo re, (4 ) th e p os se ss io n o f su cha weap on is pro pe rly con si de reda vi ol en t fe lo ny. The Gov ern m en t as ks us to rem an d t he cas e fo r res en te nc in g i n a cco rd an ce wi th th e ACCA’s 1 5- y ear m an da to ry m in im um . II . BEGAY’S T HREE -STE P ANALYSIS

“ Whe th er a p art ic ul ar co nv ic ti on is a vi ol en t fe lo ny for p ur po se s o f th e ACCA i s a que st io n o f la w we con si de r de no vo ,” Uni te d S ta te s v . Can ty, 57 0 F.3 d 1 25 1, 1 25 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) , andwe an swe r th atqu es ti on as i t p ert ai ns to th e st atut e’s res idua l cl au se inth ree s te ps . Uni te d S ta te s v . Harri so n, 5 58 F.3d12 80 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Fir st , “ we co ns id er the off en se ge ne ric al ly, th atis to say, we ex am in e itinterm s o f ho w th e la w def in es th e o ffen se an d n otinterm s o f ho w anin di vi du al off

en de r m ig htha ve co m

m it te d i t o n apa rti cu la r oc cas io n.” Beg ay , 55 3 U.S. at14 1; see als o Tay lo r v. Un it edSta te s, 4 95 U.S. 57 5, 6 00 (19 90 ) (“ [Sec ti on ] 92 4( e) m an da te s a f orm al cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch , lo ok in g o nl y to th e st atut ory de fin it io ns of t he pri oroff en se s, an d n otto th e p art ic ul ar fa ct s u nd erl y in g th os e co nv ic ti on s.”) ; Un it edSta te s v . Whi ts on , 59 7 F .3d12 18 , 12 20 –2 1 (1 1t h C ir. 20 10 ) (“ Inres idua l ca se s l ik e Harri so n— an d Whi ts on ’s cas e, he re—we lo okto th e la ng ua ge of t he st atut e it se lf t o d is cern anoff en se ’s ele m en ts an d t o d et erm in e ho w itis ‘ ge ne ric al ly’ co m m it te d.” ); Ha rri so n, 5 58 F.3dat 1 29 0– 92 .

4Seco nd , we det erm in e whe th er the ge ne ric off en se “ in vo lv es co nduc t tha t ‘pres en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ri skof p hysic al in jury to an ot he r.’” Bega y , 55 3 U.S. at14 1 (quo ti ng 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e)( 2) (B)( ii )). Thi rd , if the off en se do es pre se nt su cha ri sk , we cla ss ify it as a vi ol en t fe lo ny on ly if itis “ro ug hl y si m il ar, i n k in d as well as i n d eg ree o f ri skpo se d,” to th e cl au se ’s exa m pl e cri m es : b ur gl ary, ars on , ext orti on , andth e unl awfu l u se of e xp lo si ve s. Id . at 1 43 . Beg in ni ng with t he fir stst ep of t he an al y si s, we o bs erv e th atMcGi ll ’s pri or co nv ic ti on forpo ss es si ng a sh ort-b arre le d s ho tg un aro se un de r Fl or id a la w, whi ch
m ak es ita fel on y

“ fo r an y pe rs onto ownor t o h av e in hi s o r he r car e, cu st od y , po ss es si on , or c on tro l an y sh ort-b arre le d ri fle , sh ort-b arre le d s ho tg un , or m ach in e gu n wh ic h i s, o r m ay

read il y be m ad e, op erab le .” Fla . Sta t. § 79 0.2 21 (1 ). The 3 st atut e requi res kn owl ed ge of p os se ss io n. Se e C.W. C., Jr. v . Sta te , 33 4 S o. 2 d 2 75 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 19 76 ). Thu s, Fl or id a b an s the kn owi ng po ss es si on of ash ortba rrel edsh ot gu n. 4 The amendments to this provision s ince the date of McG ill’s conviction are immaterial. 3 Florida outlaws short-bar

rele d shotguns be cause they areinhere ntly

dang erous a

nd are 4 ordinarily used for criminal purpose s. See Rinzl er v. Car son, 262 So.2d 661, 666 (Fla. 1972) (explaining (1) “that the ty pe of f irea rms, the possession of which is outlawe d by Section 790.221 . . . is that weapon which is too dang erous to be kept in a settled community by individuals, and one which, in times of pe ace , finds its use by a criminal” and (2) “that the L eg islature may

prohibit the possession of wea pons which ar e ordina

rily used for criminal and improper pur

poses and whic h are not amongthose which a re le g itimate weapons of

defe nse and protec tion. A machine gun, particula rly a hand- barr eled one , which is, or which ma y rea dily be made, ope rable , is peculiarly adapta ble to use by

criminals in the pursuit of their c riminal 5The Flo rid a st atut e d oe s co nt ai n o ne ex cep ti on to it s b an . Flo rid a ex cep ts

“ [f]irea rm s i n v io la ti on he reo f whi chare l awfu ll y own edan d p os se ss edun de r pr ov is io ns of f

ed eral law.” Fl a. St at . § 7 90 .22 1( 3) . There fo re, we al so ex am in e if McGi ll lawf

ul ly pos se ss edth is weap on un de r fed eral law. Fed eral law, b y way of th e Nat io na l Fi rearm s Act(“NFA”), reg ul at es a na rro w cla ss of we ap on s, t erm ed

“ fir earm s,” t ha t i nc lu de s s ho rt- ba rrel edsh ot gu ns , m ach in e g un s, g ren ad es , bo m bs , an d e xp lo si ve s. See 26 U.S.C. § 5 84 5( a). As d is cu ss edlat er, the NFA di d n ot pe rm itMcGi ll to po ss es s, o r ev ento reg is te r, th is NFA pro hi bi te d weapo n. Se e 2 6 U.S.C. §§ 58 41 (b ), (c); 58 45 (a)– (f), 5 86 1( b) –( d) . McGi ll pl edgu il ty to the Flo rid a o ffen se . Gener ic al ly defi ne d, the n, the of fen se un de rlyin g M cGil l’s co nv ic ti on was h is kn owi ng po ss es si on of ash ortba rrel edsh ot gu n o ut la wedby bot h F lo rid a an d fe de ral law. The sec on d s te p o f th e res idua l-c laus e an al y si s re qu ire s u s t o d et erm in e whe th er p os se ss in g a n o ut la wedsh ort-b arre le d s ho tg un “ in vo lv es co nduc t tha t pr es en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ri skof p hysic al in jury to an ot he r.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e)( 2) (B)( ii ). On thi s p oi nt , th is Co urt h as alr eady he ldth atth e il le ga l po ss es si on of a n u nr eg is te red , sev en -in ch -b arre l ri fle , invi ol at io n o f th e NFA, is a

“ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” f

or th e p ur po se s o f th e U.S. Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es ’ care eractivities.”). 6of

fen de r en ha nc em en t, U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1. Un it edSta te s v . Owens , 44 7 F .3d13 45 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . In re ach in g t ha t co nc lu si on , th e Co urt was requi redto fin d t ha t 5 po ss es si on of t he weap on pre se nt eda se rio us ris k o f po te nt ia l i nju ry to an ot he r. The Owens Co urt p oi nt edou t tha t “ Co ng res s d et erm in edth atth e unr eg is te red po ss es si on of t he pa rti cu la r fi rearm s re gu la te d u nd er the NFA sh ou ldbe ou tl awed be cau se of the ‘ th e v irtua l i ne vi tabi li ty tha t s uc h p os se ss io n wi ll res ul t i n vi ol en ce.’” Id. at13 47 (qu ot in g Un it edSta te s v . Jen ni ng s, 1 95 F.3d79 5, 7 99 (5t h Ci r. 19 99 )). Ourho ld in g i n Owen s— “ th atth e p os se ss io n o f certa in ki nd s o f weap on s cat eg or ic al ly pres en ts th e p ot en ti al ris k o f ph y si cal in jury w arra nt in g [t he ] se nt en ce en ha nc em en t fo r . . . a crim e o f vi ol en ce,” 4 47 F.3dat 1 34 7—th us co m pe ls th e co nc lu si on th atpo ss es si ng anun reg is te redsh ort-b arre le d s ho tg un

“ in vo lv es co nduc t tha t p res en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ri skof p hysic al in jury to

In part, the Guidelines’ ca ree r-of fende r provision, at issue in Owe ns, leng thens the 5 rec ommended sente nce f

or any defe ndant convicte d of a third “ crime of violence.”U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The Guidelines def ine “c rime of violenc e” to include any felony that (1) “ has as a

n element” the ac tual, attempted, or thre atene d use of f orce ag ainst another pe rson; or (2) “is burg lary of a dw elling, a

rson, or e x tortion, involves use of explosi ves, or other wise involves conduct that pr esents a se rious potential risk of phy sical injury to another.” I d. § 4B1.2. B eca use this Guidelines definition almost perfec tly mirrors the ACCA’s de finition of “violent felony ,” “[p] rec isely

the same a

naly tical fra mework a pplied by the cour ts in ascer taining the scope of

a ‘crime of violence ’ log ically obtains with respec t to . . . what kind of conduc t [ composes] a ‘violent felony .’” United States v. Oliver, 20 F .3d 415, 418 (11th Cir. 1994). 7an ot he r” u nd er the ACCA. 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e)( 2) (B)( ii ). ButOwens do es no t 6 fu ll y an swe r th e que st io n p res en te d i n t hi s ap pe al . Our h ol di ng th ere d ep en de d o n a two -s te p i nqui ry : we co ns id eredth e o ffen se cat eg or ic al ly andth ende te rm in ed th atth e p os se ss io n o f pa rti cu la r un reg is te redweap on s, s uc h a s a s ho rt- ba rrel ed rif le , po se s a s eri ou s ri skof p hysic al in jury to o th ers . See Owens , 44 7 F .3dat 13 47 . Whe n t he Supr em e Co urt l at er d eci de d B eg ay , itad de d ath irdst ep : “ [W] e sh ou ldreadth e [ACCA’s] exa m pl es as l im it in g t he cri m es th at[th e cl au se ] co ve rs to cri m es th atare ro ug hl y si m il ar, i n k in d a s wel l as inde gr ee o f ri skpo se d, t o t he ex am pl es th em se lv es .” 55 3 U.S. at14 3. Th e que st io n h ere i s wh ethe r un reg is te redsh ort-b arre le d s ho tg un po ss es si on invi ol at io n o f Fl or id a la w andth e NFA su rv iv es Beg ay ’s th irdst ep . In o th er wo rd s, i s p os se ss in g a n o ut la wedsh ortba rrel edsh ot gu n “ ro ug hl y si m il ar, i n k in d a s wel l as de gr ee o f ri skpo se d” to bu rg lary , ars on , ext orti on , andth e unl awfu l u se of e xp lo si ve s? Inarg ui ng th atpo ss es si onof a n u nr eg is te redsawe d- of f sh ot gu n p as se s Beg ay ’s th irdst ep inth e v io le nt -fel on y an al y si s, the Gov ern m en t as se rts th at : (1 ) McGi ll ’s pri orweap on s o ffen se is “pu rp os efu l” be cau se itm us t b e “ kn owi ng ”
Acc ording ly , we r ejec t McGill’s argument that the Gover nment failed to prove 6 possessing a

short-bar rele d shotgun involved the requisite potential risk of phy sical injury . Nothing in B eg ay

altere d the sec ond step of the r esidual-c lause a naly sis. 8un de r th e Fl or id a st atut e; (2) McGi ll ’s kn owi ng ly acqu iri ng anNFA-pr oh ib it ed

weap on init se lf e vi nc es ag gr es si ve an d v io le ntco nduc t; (3) th e si gh t o f a s ho rtba rrel edsh ot gu n, l ik e a b om b, i s thr eat en in g; (4) po ss es si on of ash ort-b arre le d sh ot gu n i s a “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” und er U.S.S.G. §§ 4B 1.1 an d 4 B1 .2, an d t he same res ul t ap pl ie s u nd er the ACCA ; an d (5 ) po st -Beg ay th e Eig ht h C irc ui t h el d 7
sa wed -o ff s ho tg un po ss es si on is a “ vi ol en t fe lo ny” un de r th e ACCA b ecau se

“ [p ]oss es si on of aweap on th atha s o nl y un la wfu l p ur

po se s m ak es it‘ m or e li ke ly th atanoff

en de r, la te r po ss es si ng a gu n, wi ll us e th atgu n d el ib erat el y to ha rm a vi ct im .’ ” Uni te d S ta te s v . Vin cen t, 5 75 F.3d82 0, 8 26 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) , cert . den ie d, 13 0 S . Ct. 3 32 0 (2 01 0) (qu ot in g B eg ay , 55 3 U.S. at14 5, 1 28 S. Ct. at15 86 ). On the ot he r ha nd , def

en da ntMcGi ll arg ue s: (1) m ere p os se ss io n o f a sh ort-b arre le d s ho tg un is “ a p as si ve cri m e cen te rin g a ro un d p os se ss io n, ra th er tha n aro un d a ny ov ertact io n,” Uni te d S ta te s v . Arch er, 5 31 F.3d13 47 , 13 51 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ); a nd(2) “ [t]he actof p os se ss io n d oe s n ot , witho utm or e . . . inv ol ve an y
The Gove rnment stresse s: (1) the ACCA’s de finition of “violent felony” is similar to 7 the Guidelines de finition of “crime of violence ,” although they are not identical; (2) our

Court applies the same analy sis to the ACCA’s violent-felony and § 4B 1.2’s crime-of- violence deter minations, United St ates v. Oliver , 20 F.3d 415, 418 ( 11th Cir. 1994); (3) the c ommentary to § 4B1.2 states: “ Unlawf ully possessing a

firea rm described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a) (e .g ., a sawe d-off shotgun or

sawe d-off

rifle, silenc er, bomb, or ma chine gun) is a ‘c rime of violenc e,’” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, cmt. n.1; and (4) “commenta ry in the Guidelines Manua l that interprets or explains a guide line is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a fe dera l statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly err oneous re adingof, that guideline.” Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 37 (1993). 9ag gr es si ve or v io le ntbe havi or .” Id . McGil l d oe s n otdi ffer en ti at e sh ort-b arre le d

sh ot gu ns fro m

ge ne ric ha nd gu ns . To an swe r whe th er Mc Gil l’s o ffen se pa ss es Beg ay ’s th irdst ep , we bea r in
m in d t ha t a c omm on featur e o f th e ACCA’s ex am pl e cri m es is th atth ey

all in vo lv e

“pu rp os efu l, v io le nt , andag gr es si ve co nduc t,” wh ic h d em on st rat es anin crea se d li ke li ho odth at“ anoff

en de r, la te r po ss es si ng a gu n, wi ll us e th atgu n d el ib erat el y to ha rm a vi ct im .” Beg ay , 55 3 U.S. at14 4– 45 , 12 8 S . Ct. at15 86 (qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) . W e d o n otan al yze wh ethe r th e cri m e is pu rp os efu l, v io le nt , or a gg res si ve . Rathe r, we de ci de th is cas e n arro wly onan ot he r gr ou nd . As de ta il edbe lo w, Co ng res s treat s an d re gu la te s ex pl os iv es an d s ho rt- barrel edsh ot gu ns inth e sa m e cat eg ory inth e NFA. Even acce pt in g t he go ve rn m en t’s ar gu m en t tha t s ho rtba rrel edsh ot gu ns are n otord in ary fir earm s b utare m or e li ke expl os iv es interm s of da ng ero us ne ss an d v io le nc e, Co ng res s i nc lu de d o nl y th e u se , bu t n otth e po ss es si on of, e xp lo si ve s among th e ACCA’s ex am pl e cri m es . 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e)( 2) (B)( ii ). Forth e rea so ns di sc us se d b el ow, we co nc lu de po ss es si on of a sh ort-b arre le d s ho tg un is no t “ si m il ar i n k in d” to “us e o f ex pl os iv es ,” it s cl os es t enum erat edan al og , or t o the othe r cri m es li st edinth e ACCA’s res idua l cl au se an d th us is no t a v io le ntfel on y . 10At the ou ts et , we reco gn iz e th atth ere i s a “ reas on ab le —i nd eed , very

subs ta nt ia l— di ffer en ce b etweenpo ss es si on of age ne ric ‘ fir earm ’ an d p os se ss io n of on e o f th e sp eci al iz edweap on s s in gl ed -o utforpa rti cu la riz edtre atm en t b y [th e NFA]. ” Uni te d S ta te s v . Forte s, 1 41 F.3d1, 7 (1s t Ci r. 19 98 ) ; s ee J en ni ng s, 1 95 8 F.3 d a t 7 99 n.4 (st at in g C on gr es s p la cedstric te r co nt ro ls ov er s awed -o ff s ho tg un s, m ach in e g un s, s il en cers , gre na de s, an d o th er g an gs te r-ty pe weap on s b ecau se of i ts

“ sp eci fic de cl arat io n a ndfin di ng th at ” th es e weap on s “ are p rimaril y weap on s o f war an d h av e n o app ro pr ia te sp orti ng us e o r us e fo r pe rs on al pro te ct io n.” ) (quo ti ng S. Rep . No. 9 0- 15 01 , at 2 8 (1 96 8) ). 9 The NFA est ab li sh es a se pa rat e reg ul at ory stru ctur e fo r a n arro w cla ss of sp eci al iz edweap on s, t erm ed“ fir earm s,” t ha t i nc lu de s s ho rt- ba rrel edsh ot gu ns an d ot he r in he ren tl y

da ng ero us de st ru ct iv e d ev ic es , su chas g ren ad es , bo m bs , ex pl os iv es , androc ke ts . (“ NFA fir earm s” ). See 2 6 U.S.C. § § 5 84 1, 5 84 5( a)– (f).

See also District of Columbia v. He ller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2815–16 (2008) (“We 8 there fore rea d [Unit ed States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816 (1939)] to say only that the Second Amendme nt does not protect those w eapons not ty pically possessed by

law-a biding citizens for lawful pur

poses, such a s short-bar

rele d shotguns.” ). See also United States v. Upton, 512 F .3d 394, 404 (7th Cir. 2008) (“ People do not 9 shorten their shotguns to hunt or shoot skeet.”); United States v. B razea u, 237 F.3d 842, 845 ( 7th Cir. 2001)(“T he point is that most firearms do not have to be re g istered—only those that Congr ess found to be inhe rently dang erous.” ). 11The NFA m ak es itun la wfu l fo r any pe rs on to rece iv e o r po ss es s an NFA fire arm un le ss itis bo th “ m ad e” an d “ tra ns ferr ed ” inco m pl ia nc e wit h the NFA’ s 1 0 1 1 requi rem en ts . 26 U.S.C. § 5 86 1( b) , (c). The NFA requi res th e “ m ak er” t o fi le an ap pl ic at io n wi th th e Bu reauof Al co ho l, To ba cco , andFir earm s (“ BATF”) t o m ak e an d re gi st er an NFA fire arm , sec ur e th e BATF’s ap pr ov al , andpa y a ta x. Se e 2 6 U.S.C. § 5 82 2. The NFA m ak es itun la wfu l fo r an y pe rs on to rece iv e o r po ss es s 1 2
un reg is te redNFA fire arm s. 2 6 U.S.C. § 58 61 (d ). The NFA als o p ro hi bi ts th e “ tra ns fer” of a n NFA fi rearm un le ss th e tra ns fero r fi le s an ap pl ic at io n wi th th e BATF, id en ti fy in g i n d et ai l the tra ns fero r, th e tr an sf eree , andth e NFA fi rearm . See 2 6 U.S.C. § 58 12 (a); see als o 2 7 C .F.R. §4 79 .84 . Im

po rta nt ly, th e NFA do es no t al lo w a tra ns fere e, li ke Defen da nt 1 3 The NF A def

ines “making ” to include “ manufa cturing(other tha n by one qualifie d to 1 0 eng ag e in such business under this chapter) , putting tog ether , altering , any combination of these, or otherw ise producinga fire arm.” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(i). In order to qualify

to eng ag e in the business of manufa cturingfirea rms under the NFA , a manuf actur er must re g ister his business with the BA TF a

nd pay a yearly tax for eac h place of business. 26 U.S.C. §§ 5801, 5802. The NF A def

ines “tra nsfer ” to include “ selling, a ssigning , pledg ing, le asing , loaning , 1 1 g iving a way , or otherw ise disposing of.” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(j). The make r also must identify the fire arm a

nd the maker

in the application, and if

the 1 2 maker is an individual, he or she must submit finge rprints and a photogr aph with the application. 26 U.S.C. § 5822. “Manufa cture rs” r eg istered to eng ag e in the business of manuf acturing firea rms reg ulated by the NF A must also reg ister ea ch NF A-de fined fir ear m with the BATF . 26 U.S.C. § 5841(b), (c) . As with the manufa cture r’s a pplication, if the transf

ere e is an individual, the 1 3 application must include a r ece nt photogr aph of thetransfe ree and his or her fing erprints. S ee 26 U.S.C. § 5812(a); 27 C.F.R. § 479.85. The tr ansfe ror’ s application must be ac companied by a 12McGi ll , to reg is te r a s ho rt- ba rrel edsh ot gu n; on ly the tra ns fero r, m anuf actur er, im po rte r, orm ak er m ay

do so . See 2 6 U.S.C. § 58 41 (b ). Mo reo ve r, th e m ak er an d tra ns fero r m

us t es tabl is h (1 ) “ reas on s wh y th ere i s a r eas on ab le ne ces si ty for s uc h pe rs on to pu rch as e o r ot he rwis e acqui re the de vi ce o r weap on ” fro m th e m ak er an d (2 ) “ th atsu chpe rs on ’s recei ptor p os se ss io n o f th e d ev ic e o r weap onwou ldbe co ns is te ntwith p ub li c sa fety .” 27 C.F.R. § 47 8.9 8. Th e reg is tra ti on requi rem en ts fo r NFA fir earm s ar e so strin ge ntth atso m e h av e ch al le ng edth em as a n abs ol ut e ba r to po ss es si on . See e.g ., Uni te d S ta te s v . She pa rd so n, 1 67 F.3d12 0 (2 d C ir. 19 99 ); Un it edSta te s v . McCo ll om , 12 F.3d96 8 (1 0t h C ir. 1 99 3) . All to say, the NFA def

in es an d re gu la te s s ho rt- ba rrel edsh ot gu ns an d ex pl os iv es inth e sa m e fi rearm s ca te go ry an d h eav il y

pro sc rib es th ei r m anuf

actur e an d p os se ss io n. Po ss es si onof p ro hi bi te d e xp lo si ve s i s atlea stas i nh eren tl y da ng ero us , agg res si ve , andth reat en in g a s p os se ss io n o f a p ro hi bi te d s ho rt- ba rrel ed sh ot gu n. YetCo ng res s d idno t i nc lu de th e p os se ss io n o f ex pl os iv es inth e ACCA’s li stof e xam

pl e cri m es . W e can no t cl as si fy po ss es si ng on e type o f NFA
“ce rtificate of the loca l chief of police, sheriff of the county , head of the State police, State or local district attorne y

or prose cutor,” or other a cceptable per son, which ce rtificate “shall state . . . that the ce rtifying of

ficial ha s no information indicatingthat the re ceipt or posse ssion of the firea rm would placethe transf ere e in violation of State or loca l law or that the tra nsfer ee w ill use the fire arm for

other than la

wful purpose s.” 27 C.F.R. § 479.85. The N FA pr ohibits the transfe ree from takingpossession of an NF A fire arm unless the B ATF has appr oved the tra nsfer and ac cepte d the re g istration of the fire arm to the tra nsfer ee. See 26 U.S.C. § 5812(b); see a lso 27 C.F.R. § 479.86. 13ou tl awedweap on as avi ol en t fe lo ny whenth e ACCA s pe ak s o nl y to th e u se of an ot he r. To d o s o wo ul d re adth e wor d “ us e” o utof t he ACCA st atut e. Fo r th is reas on , we con cl ud e th atMcGi ll ’s Flo rid a cri m e o f po ss es si on of a n o ut la wed sh ort-b arre le d s ho tg un is no t “ si m il ar i n k in d” to th e cri m es li st edinth e ACCA’s res idua l cl au se . See Be ga y , 53 3 U.S. at14 3. Po ss es si on of ash ort-b arre le d sh ot gu n fa il s B eg ay ’s th irdan al yti cal st ep forth is reas on . Acco rd in gl y , we con cl ud e th atMcGi ll ’s pri orco nv ic ti on forpo ss es si ng an ou tl awedsh ort-b arre le d s ho tg un was n ota vi ol en t fe lo ny un de r th e ACCA. The di st ric t co urt thu s p ro pe rly decl in edto sen te nc e h im as a n a rm edcare er cr im in al . The sen te nc e im

po se d i s AFFIRMED.

14