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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 15 85

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

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.

Ja m es Jo ne s Ho ward

,

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 So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 18 , 20 13 Fil ed : J un e 1 1, 2 01 4

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, COLLOTON , and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Ja m es Howar d pl ead ed g ui lt y to un la wfu l po ss es si on of a fir earm as a

pr ev io us ly con vi ct ed fel on , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g)

. Bas ed on Howar d’s

c r im in al hi st or y , th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Howar d to th e st at ut or y m i n i mu m 1

The Hon or ab le James E. Grit zn er, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1
fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.se nt en ce of fif te en y ears ’ im

pr is on men t un de r th e Arm ed Care er Cri m in al Act (“ ACCA”)

. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e). Howar d ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at ne it he r of hi s

se xu al -ab us e co nv ic ti on s qu al ifi es as a vi ol en t fel on y un de r th e ACCA, an d th at th e
Act’s re si du al cla us e is un co ns ti tu ti on al ly vag ue . W e aff irm.

Und er th e ACCA, a de fen da nt co nv ic t e d p u r s u a nt to 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) is

su bjec t to a m in im

um se nt en ce of fif

te en y ears if he ha s su st ai ne d a t l e a s t t h r e e

pr ev io us co nv ic ti on s fo r a vi ol en t fel on y , a se rio us dr ug of fen se , or bo th

. Id

. § 92 4( e). The Act de fin es “ vi ol en t fel on y ” to in cl ud e “ an y cri m e pu ni s h a bl e by

im pr is on m en t fo r a te rm ex c e e d i n g on e y ear” th at is “ bu rg la ry , ars on , or ex to rti on , in vo lv es us e of ex pl os i ve s, or ot he rwis e in vo lv es co nd uc t th at pr es en ts a se rio us

po te nt ia l ri sk of p hysic al in jury to an ot he r.” Id . § 9 24 (e)( 2) (B).

Howar d do es no t di sp ut e th at he su st ai ne d two qu al ifyin g co nv ic ti on s, on e fo r fir st -d eg ree th eft an d an ot he r fo r se co nd -d eg ree m ur de r. Bu t he co nt en ds th at ne it he r of hi s se xu al -ab us e co nv ic ti on s— a 19 88 Ark an sa s co nv ic ti on fo r fir st -d eg ree carn al

ab us e an d a 19 92 Io wa co nv ic ti on fo r th ird -d eg ree se xu al ab us e—c on st it ut es a th ird

vi ol en t fel on y , be cau se ne it he r is si m il ar in ki nd

, or de gr ee of ri s k p o s e d

, to th e of fen se s en um erat ed in § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (ii ). The di st ric t co ur t, ci ti ng t h i s c o ur t’s

de ci si on s in Uni te d St at es v. Daw n , 68 5 F.3 d 79 0 ( 8 t h C ir. 20 12 ), Uni te d St at es v. Sc ud de r , 6 48 F.3 d 63 0, 63 3 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 1 1 ), an d Uni te d St at es v. Min cks , 4 09 F.3 d

89 8, 90 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ), ru le d th at bo th of th es e co nv ic ti on s fel l wit hi n th e ACCA’s

res id ua l cl au se

. W e rev ie w th at de te rm in at io n de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. W ha le y , 55 2

F.3 d 9 04 , 90 5 (8 th Cir . 20 09 ).

The Ark an sa s st at ut e un de r whi ch Howar d was co nv ic te d, Ark an sa s Co de § 5-

14 -1 04 (1 98 8)

, pr ov id ed th at “ [a] pe rs on co m m it s carn al ab us e in th e fir st de gr ee if,

be in g ei gh te en (1 8) y ears ol d or o l d e r, he en ga ge s in se xu al in te rco ur se or de vi at e

se xu al act iv it y wit h an ot he r pe rs on no t hi s sp ou se who is le ss th an fo ur te en (1 4) y ears

-2

-ol d.” Co ur t reco r d s s h o w e d th at Howar d was co nv ic te d fo r en ga gi ng in se xu al

in te rco ur se wit h t he vi ct im . PSR ¶ 2 4.

U n d e r t h e res id ua l cl au se of th e ACCA, a cri m e qu al ifi es as a vi ol en t fel on y if it “ in vo lv es co nd uc t th at pr es en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ris k o f p h y si cal in jury to

an ot he r.” 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (ii ). W e reas on ed in Daw n th at “ [s ]exu al co nt act
be twee n pa rti es of di ffer in g ph y si cal an d em ot io na l m at ur it y carr ie s a su bs ta nt ia l ris k

th at ph y si cal fo rce m ay be us ed in th e co ur se of co m m it ti ng th e o ffen se .” 68 5 F .3d

at 79 6– 97 (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

. Tha t is es pe c ia ll y so whe re, as he re, th e vi ct im m us t be of a te nd er ag e (y ou ng er th an fo ur te en y ears ) an d th e se xu al of fen de r

m us t be an ad ul t ag ed at le as t ei gh te en y ears

. The y ou ng er th e vi ct im

, an d th e la rg er th e ag e di ffer en ce be twee n pe rp et rat or an d vi ct im

, th e gr eat er the li ke ly di sp ari ty in ph ys i cal an d em ot io na l m at ur it y be twee n th e pa rti es

. The ris k of in jury ari se s, on e

co ur t ex pl ai ne d, be cau se th es e of fen se s “ typic a l l y oc cu r in cl os e qu art ers , an d are

ge ne ral ly pe rp et rat ed by an ad ul t up on a vi ct im who is no t on ly sm al le r, weak er, an d

le ss ex pe rie nc ed

, bu t is al so ge ne ral ly su sc ep ti bl e to acce di ng to th e co erci ve po wer of ad ul t au th o r i ty fi gu res .” Uni te d St at es v. Sh er wo od , 1 56 F.3 d 21 9, 22 1 (1 st Ci r.
19 98 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

. The pa rti es ha ve no t pr es en te d em pi ric al da ta
ab ou t ph y si cal in

juri es ari si ng fro m se xu a l of fen se s co m

m it te d ag ai ns t m in or s, cf

. Ch amb er s v. Uni te d St at es , 55 5 U.S. 12 2, 12 9 (2 00 9)

, bu t o u r p rio r de ci si on s in

Daw n , Sc ud

de r , an d Min ks al ig n wit h th e Seco nd Ci rcu it ’s in tu it iv e be li ef th at “ gi ve n th e pe cu li ar su sc ep ti bi li ty of m in or s to co erci on by ad ul ts in to se xu al act s, we th in k

it m or e li ke ly th at vi ol en t an d ag gr es si ve fo rce w i l l a c t ua ll y be em pl oyed in th e

co ur se of co m

m it ti ng th e cri m e at is su e he r e t h a n i n t he co ur se of co m m it ti ng an

or di na ry bu rg la ry .” Uni te d S ta te s v. Da ye , 57 1 F .3d 22 5, 2 34 (2d Cir . 20 09 ).

Co ns is te nt wit h o ur ho ld in g in Daw n th at a co m pa rab le co nv ic ti on un de r Ark an sa s Co de § 5- 14 -1 25 (a) (2 00 2) was a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” ba se d on th e ne arl y

id en ti cal res id ua l cl au se in USSG § 4B 1.2 (a), se e 68 5 F.3 d at 79 8, we co nc lu de th at

Howar d’s co nv ic ti on un de r th e Ark an sa s c a r na l-a bu se st at ut e qu al ifi es as a vi ol en t

-3

-fel on y

. As th e Ark an sa s co nv i ct io n is su ffi ci en t to m ak e Howar d an arm ed care er

cri m in al

, we ne ed no t ad dr es s whe th er hi s co nv ic ti on fo r se xu al ab us e un de r Io wa
Co de § 70 9.4 (2 )(c) (4 ) (1 99 2) —wh ic h i n v o l ve s a vi ct im ag ed fo ur te en or fif te en

y ears —q ua li fie s as a vi ol en t fel on y

. Cf

. Uni te d St at es v. Owen s , 67 2 F.3 d 96 6,

9 7 0

– 7 2 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 12 ) (s ta tu to ry rap e un de r Alab am a la w in vo lv in g se x u a l

in te rco ur se wit h a vi ct im be twee n t welv e an d si xt een y ears ol d is no t a vi ol en t
fel on y ); Uni te d St at es v. Har ri s , 60 8 F.3 d 12 22

, 12 30 –3 3 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ) (v io la ti on of Fl or id a se xu al ba tt ery st at ut e in vo lv in g se xu al co nt act wit h a vi ct im un de r si xt een

y ears ol d is no t a vi ol en t fel on y ); Un i t e d S t at es v. Ch ri st en se n , 55 9 F.3 d 10 92

, 1 09 3– 95 (9 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (s ta tu to ry rap e un de r W as hi ng to n la w in vo lv in g se xu al

in te rco ur se wit h a vi ct i m be twee n fo ur te en an d si xt een y ears ol d is no t a vi ol en t
fel on y ).

Howar d’s arg um en t th at th e res id ua l cl au se of th e ACCA is un co ns ti tu ti on al ly

va gu e is fo recl os ed by pr eced en t. Se e Sy kes v. Uni te d St at es , 13 1 S. Ct

. 22 67

, 22 77 (2 01 1) ; Ja mes v. Uni te d St at es , 55 0 U.S. 19 2, 21 0 n.6 (2 00 7) ; Uni te d St at es v. Eva ns , 73 8 F .3d 93 5, 9 36 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4) (pe r cu ria m ).

* * *

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-4

-