2009 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
8-12-2009 

# U SA v . T e rrel l P ol k
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4399

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . T e r r e l l P o l k " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 747. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/747P 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- 4399

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. T E RR E L L P OL K,

A ppel l ant

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 i nal A ct i on N o. 4- 08- cr - 00136- 001) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jam es F
. M cC lure

A r gued J ul y8, 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

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t12, 2009) St ephen F. B ecke r , E s qui r e ( A r gued) Shapi r o & B ecke r2 114 M ar ketSt r eet L ew i s bur g, PA 17837- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ant M ar t i n C

. C ar l s on U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney G eor ge J
. R ockt as hel ( A r gued) A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 240 W es tT hi r d St r eet , Sui t e 316 W i l l i amspor t , PA 17701- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge T err el l Pol k appea l s fr om an orde r s ent enci ng hi m t o 37 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entforpos s essi o n of a “ s hank” i n pr i s on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tch ara cter i zed Pol k’ s offe ns e as a “c r i m e of vi ol ence , ” and a ccor di ngl ycal cul at ed hi s s ent enci ng r ange pur s uantt o t he C ar eerO ff en d er G ui del i nes . T hi s w as corr ect und er U n it ed St at es v. Kenney , 3 1 0 F
. 3 d 1 3 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). H o w e v e r, b e c a u se w e d e ter m in e th a t Kenney i s no l ongergood l aw i n l i ght of t he Supr eme C our t ’ s r ece ntdeci s i on i n B egay v .3 U ni t ed Stat es , __ U
. S. __, 128 S. C t
. 1581 ( 2008) , w e vac at e the D i s t r i ctC o u rt ’s s ent enci ng or derand r emand forfur t her proceed i ng s. I . Backg r ound I n J une 2007, Pol k, an i nm at e s ervi ng a s ent ence att he U n ited S ta tes P e n iten tiary at L e w isb u rg , P A , h a d h is c e ll se a rc h e d b ya c o rre c tio n a l o f f ice r, w h o f

o u n d a six -in c h p las tic ho m em ade sha nk i n an env el op e con t ai ning his personal papers. A gr and j ur yi n t he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a r etur ned a one- counti ndi ctm entagai ns t Pol k for pos s es s i on of a pr ohi bi t ed o b j e c td e s i g n e d t o b e u s e d a s a we a p o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S

. C. § 1 7 9 1 (a )(2 ), an d P o lk p lea d e d g u ilt y t o th e in d ictm e n t in acc or dance w i t h a pl ea agr eement
. A t Pol k’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng i n D ece m ber2008 , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatt he o f f e n s e q u a lif

ie d a s P o lk ’s th ir d p re d ic a te “ c ri m e o f v io le n c e ,” t hus w arr ant i ng a thr ee- l evel sen te nce e nhance m entundert he f e d e ra l S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s f o r c a re e r o f

f e n d e rs . U .S .S .G . § 4B 1. 1. C ons equent l y , Pol k’ s t ot al offe ns e l evel w as 14, w hi ch, w h en co m b ined w ith h is cri m inal h ist o ryca tego ryo f V I, res ul t e d i n a Se nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a ng e of 37 –4 6 months

. W i t houtt he enha ncement , t he G ui del i nes r ange w o u ld have been 27 –3 3 m on t hs. P olk di d n ot obj ect t o hi s desi gn at i on as a car eeroffe nder( t hough B egay had been i s s ued s i x m o n t hs befo re s entenci ng ), and , as noted, w as sent enced t o 3 7 m on t hs’ i m pr i s onm ent
. H e t i m el yappea l ed.4 I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju r i s d ic tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under18 U

. S. C

. § 3742( a) ( 1) and 28 U

. S. C

. § 1291. B eca us e Pol k di d notobj ectt o hi s des i gnat i on as a ca r eer o f f e n d e rf o rs e n t e n c i n g p u rp o s e s i n t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r t , we r evi ew forpl ai n err or . Fed. R
. C r i m . P. 52( b)

. T o gr antt he r el i ef r eques t ed under t hi s s t andar d, w e w oul d need t o concl ude n o t o nlyt hat the D i stri ctC ou rterr ed in cl assi fy i ng P olk as a car eeroffe nder , butt hatt he err orw as pl ai n, and i taff ect ed adv ers el y“subst anti al ri gh ts” o f P olk as w el l as the “f

ai rness , i nt egr i t y , or publ i c re put at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . D a v is , 407 F. 3d 162, 164 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. E vans , 1 5 5 F
. 3 d 2 4 5 , 2 5 1 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 8 )).
I f w e det er m i ne the err orw as notpl ai n, Pol k’ s co u ns el offe r s an al t erna ti ve ar gum entof i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el base d o n h i s fai l ur e t o r ai s e B egay a n d its a rg u a b le ef fe ct at sen tenc ing

. U n d er Str i ckland v. W as hi ngt on , 46 6 U. S. 66 8 (198 4), t o p revai l on t his cl ai m cou nsel ’s perform ance m ust b e d e f ic ie n t, i d. at687 ( “I n l i ghtof al l t he ci r cumst ance s , t he i dent i fi ed ac t s orom i s s i ons w er e out s i de the w i de r ange of p ro f e s s io n a lly c o m p e te n t a s s is ta n c e .” ), a n d p re ju d ic ia l, i d. at 6 9 0 (in th is co n tex t, th a t “th e re is a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyth a t, butfor counsel ’ s unpr ofes s i onal err or s , t he r es ul tof the p roc ee d ing w o u ld h av e b ee n d iffe ren t”).5 I I I . D i s cus s i on A. Pol k ar gues t hathi s § 1791( a) ( 2) convi ct i on cannots erve as a pr edi cat e “c r i m e of vi ol ence ” fort he purpos e of de s i gnat i ng hi m as a ca r eer o ff

ender

. U ndert he C ar eerO ffe nder G ui del i nes , a “c r i m e of vi ol ence ” i s defi ned as

a n yo f f e n se u n d e r f

e d e r a l o r sta te l aw . . . t hat

- - ( 1) has as an el ement t he us e, at t empted us e, or t hr eat ened us e of p hy s i cal for ce agai ns tt he per s on of anot her , or( 2) i s bur gl aryof a dw el l i ng, ar s on, or ext or t i on, i nvolves t he us e of expl os i ves , orot herw i s e i nvol ves conductt hatpr es ent s a s er i ous p o ten tial ri s k o f

p h y sic a l in

ju ryto an o ther. U
. S

. S

. G

. § 4 B 1

. 2 (a).
I n Kenney , w e h eld th at “w h atev er a n inm ate’s i n t e n t i o n s [ , ] h i s p o s s e s s i o n o f a w e a p o n i n a p r i s o n i n h e r e n t l y, and accordingl y ‘by i t s n ature, ’ present s ‘a ser i ou s potent i al ri sk of phy s i cal i nj ur y ’ t o ot her per s ons i n t he pr i s on. ” 310 F. 3d at 137. R eview ing t he natur e of the off ens e, w e det erm i ned that6 p o t e n t i a l r i s k o f

v i o l e n c e o ri n

j u r y i s e n o u g h t o q u a l i f y a § 1 791( a) ( 2) offe ns e as a “c r i m e of vi ol ence ” undert he “otherw i s e i nvol ves ” cl au s e of thatdefi ni t i on i n t he C ar eer O f f e n d e r G u id e lin e s . I

d. Th u s , t h e s u c c e s s o f Po l k ’ s a ppeal tur ns on w hethert he ana l y sis e n dor s ed i n Kenney s t i l l appl i es p o st- B egay . I n B egay , t he Supr eme C our taddr es s ed t he “vi ol ent fe lon y ” pro v isi o n o f th e A rm ed C are er C ri m inal A ct (A C C A ). 128 S. C t
. at1583. T hatpr ovi s i on s t at es , i n per t i nentpar t , t hat a “ v io len t f

e lo n y ” is
anycr i m e . . . t hat

- - ( i) h as as an el ement t he us e, at t empt ed us e, or t hr eat ened us e o f phy s i cal for ce a g a in st th e p e rso n o f

a n o th e r; o r (ii) i s bu rgl ary , ar s on, orext or t i on, i nvol ves t he us e o f expl os i ves , or ot herw i s e i nvol ves conductt hat pr es ent s a ser i ous pot ent i al r i s k of p h y s ic a l in

ju ry to a n o th e r . . . . 18 U
. S

. C

. § 9 24 (e) (2) (B ). T he C ou rtheld that, t o q u a l i fyas a
“ v io len t f

e lo n y ” u n d e r th e “ o th e r w ise in v o lv e s” c lau se o f th is pr ovi s i on, an off

ens e must ( 1) pr es enta s er i ous pot ent i al r i s k of p h ys i c a l i n

j u r y and ( 2) be “r o u g h ly si m i l ar , i n ki nd as w el l as degr ee of r i s k pos ed, t o t he exam pl es [bur gl ary , ar s on, ext or t i on, orus e of e xpl os i ves ] t h em selves

. ” B egay , 128 S. C t
. atW e nee d notdeci de w hetherand t o w hatext entour 1 deci s i on i n P ars on rem ains ef fe cti v e a fter B egay . I t i s s uffi ci ent her e t o r ecogn ize tha t , t hough P ars on s ay s t he def i ni t i ons of 7 1585–86. T he C our tnot ed thatt he i m por t antcomm on at t r i but es o f th e listed c rim e s a re th a t th e yin v o lv e “ p u rp o se f u l, vio len t, and aggr es s i ve conduc t
. ” I d. at1586. T h e qu esti o n w e fa ce is w h ethe r B egay ’ s anal y s i s

— t hat offe ns es m us tinv o l ve “purpos eful , vi ol ent , and aggr es s i ve c o n d u c t ” t o q u a l i f

y a s a “ v i o l e n t f

e l o n y ” f

o rACCA purpos es

— al s o appl i es t o t he C ar eer O ffe nderG ui del i nes . Pr eB egay , o u r C o u rt stat ed that tho u g h the lan g u ag e o f th e A C C A ’s “vi ol entfel ony ” pr ovi s i on i s near l yi dent i cal to the C ar eer O ffen der G uidel i nes’ defi nit i on of a “cri m e of v i olence, ” these tw o s e c tio n s a re n o t n e c e s s a ri ly co e x te n s iv e . U ni t ed Stat es v. P ars on , 955 F. 2d 858, 870 ( 3d C i r . 1992)

. H ow ever , t he Supr eme C o ur thas s i nce va cat ed and r emanded for r econs i der at i on, i n l i ghtof B egay , C our t s of A ppeal s ’ deci s i ons app l y i ng t he C areerO ffen der G uidel i nes’ “ot herw i se i nv olves” c la u s e . See, e. g. , A r cherv. U ni t ed Stat es , _

_ U .S ._

_ , 1 2 8 S . C t. 2051 ( 2008) ( vaca t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. A r cher , 2 4 3 F
. A p p ’x 5 6 4 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (c a rry in g a c o n c e a led w e a p o n )); Tigerv. U ni t ed Stat es , __U
. S. __, 128 S. C t
. 2048 (2008) ( vaca t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Tiger , 240 F. A pp’ x 283 ( 10t h C i r . 2007) ( dr i vi n g u n d e rt h e i n f

l u e n c e ) )

. Th i s l e a v e s l i t t l e d o u b tt hat B egay bear s on ourdet erm inat i on of w hethert o cl as s i fyan o f f e n s e a s a “ c ri m e o f

v io le n c e .” 1“vi ol entfel ony ” and “ cr i m e of vi ol ence ” i n t he A C C A and the C a r e e rOff

e n d e rGui d e l i n e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , a r e n o tc o e x t e n s i ve, B egay and the r emands fr om t he Supr eme C o u rt that have fol l ow ed i ti ndi cat e thatt he def i ni t i ons are close e nough t hat p re c e d e n t u n d e r th e f

o rm e r m u st b e c o n sid e re d in d e a lin g w ith th e la tte r. See, e. g. , U

ni t ed Stat es v. St i ns on , __ F. 3d __, N o. 08- 1717, 2009 W L 2231644, at*1 ( 3d C i r . J ul y28, 2009) ( “A l t hough t hi s cas e i nvol ves t he G ui del i nes , t he de fin i t i on of a vi ol entfel onyundert h e A C C A i s s uffi ci ent l ys i m i l art o t he defi ni t i on of a c r i m e of vi ol ence u n d er t he G ui del i nes t hat au tho ri tyinterpre ti n g o n e is g en era ll yap p li ed to the o ther.”). 8 G i ven B egay ’ s appl i cabi l i t yt o t he off ens e ati s s ue her e, w e hol d t hatpos s es sion of a w eapon, even i n a pr i s on, i s not
“ ro u g h lysim ilar, in k in d a s w e ll as in d e g re e o f risk p o se d ,” to t he enumerated cr i m es of bur gl ary , ar s on, ext or t i on, orus e of expl os i ves . 128 S. C t
. at1585. W hi l e no doubtpos s es s i on of a w e a p o n in p ri s o n in v o lv e s a h ig h d e g re e o f ri s k , B egay p o in ts o u t th a t e v e n a se rio u s p o ten tial fo r i n ju ry is no t e n o u g h to qual i fya cr i m e forcar eeroffe nderenhan c e me nt ; t he r i s k cr eat ed m u s t a ls o b e “ s im ila r i n k in d ” to th e c ri m e s s e t o u t. I d. T hey i nvol ve over t , act i ve conduct t hatr es ul t s i n har m t o a per s on or p rop erty
. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tem

pl et on , 543 F. 3d 378, 383 ( 7t h C i r . 2008)

. T he pos s i bi l i t yt hatone w i l l confr ontanother p e rs o n w ith v io le n t r e s u lts is n o t s u f f ic ie n t. See i d.
P o st- B egay , t he di s t i nct i on betw een a ct i ve and pass i ve cr i m es i s vi t al w hen eval uat i ng offe ns es under t he C areer9 O f f e n d e r G u id e lin e s to d e ter m in e if th e ye n ta il “p u rp o se f

u l, vi o lent , and aggr es s i ve conduc t
. ” W hi l e pos s es s i ng a w eapon i n pr i s on i s purpos eful , i n t h atw e mayas s um e one w ho pos s es s es a s hank i nt ends t hat pos s es s i on, i t cannotpr oper l ybe char act er ized as conductt hati s i t s el f aggr es s i ve orvi ol ent , as o n lyth e p o ten tial e x ists f o r a g g re ss iv e o r v io len t co n d u c t. M uch l i ke carry i ng a con ceal ed w eapo n, t he o ff ense i s a “pas s i ve cr i m e ce nt er i ng ar ound pos s es s i on, r ather t han ar ound any over t act i on . . . . T he act of pos s es s i on does no t, w i t hout m or e . . . , i nvol ve any aggr es s i ve or vi ol entbehavi or . ” U ni t ed St at es v. A r cher , 53 1 F. 3d 1347, 1351 ( 11t h C i r . 2008) ( e mp h a s i s i n o r i g i n a l )

. Ea c h o f t h e c r i me s n o t e d i n t h e ACCA and the C ar eerO ffe nderG ui del i nes aff ect s , d ir ect l yand aggr es s i vel y , t he vi ct i m s i nvol ved ort hei rpr oper t y . A ccor di ng t o the Su prem e C ou rt , byprovidi ng t he ex am ples C on gress m e a n t f o r t h e “ s t a tu t e t o c o v e r o n l y si m i l ar cr i m es , r athert han eve r y cr i m e that‘ pr es ent s a ser i ous pot ent i al r i s k of phy s i cal i nj ur yt o another

. ’ ” B egay , 1 2 8 S

. C t. at 1 5 8 5 (e m p h a sis in o ri g inal).
T he G overnm en t ur ges us , i n anal y zi ng t he natur e of Pol k’ s offe ns e, t o emphasi ze t hathi s pos s es s or ycr i m e occ ur r ed in a p riso n c o n tex t, a n e n v iro n m e n t in w h ich h e ig h ten e d se c u rity is re q u ire d a n d n o p e rm iss ib le u se e x ists f o r a p riso n e r to pos s es s a w eapon. T hatw as t he bas i s of our anal y s i s i n Kenney , 310 F. 3d at137, as w el l as pr e- B egay d e c isio n s o f o th e r C irc u it C o u rt s re a c h in g th e s a m e c o n c lu s io n . S ee, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. V ahovi ck , 160 F. 3d 395, 397 ( 7t h C i r . 1998) ( det erm i ni ng t hat10 t h ere i s no acc ept abl e us e fora w eapon byan i nm at e and that “pr i s ons ar e i nher e n t l yd a n g e r o u s pl ace s and theypr es entuni que p ro b lem s” ); U

ni t ed St at es v. Y

oung , 9 9 0 F
. 2 d 4 6 9 , 4 7 2 (9th C ir

. 1993 ) ( “ Th e c o n f

i n e s o f p r i s o n p r e c l u d e a n y r e c r e a t i o n a l us es f o r a d e a d ly w e a p o n a n d re n d e r its p o ss e ss io n a se rio u s th re a t to the s af etyo f o thers.”).
B egay excl udes t hat m ode of ana l y s i s , how ever . W e do notdi s put e the i nher ent danger s of poss es s i ng a s hank i n pr i s on, b u t th is a lo n e c a n n o t tra n sf o rm a m e re p o ss e ss io n o f f e n se in to on e that i s s i m i l art o t he cr i m es l i s t ed. T hus , a § 1791( a) ( 2) convi ct i on forpos s es s i on of a pr ohi bi t ed obj ectdes i gned t o be u sed as a w eapon i n pr i s on i s nota “c r i m e of vi ol ence ” for purpos es of t he C ar eer O ffe nder G ui del i nes . W e re cogni ze that ourdeci s i on i s at o d d s w i t h t he Tent h C i r cui tC our t ’ s r ece nt deci s i on i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. Zuniga , 5 5 3 F
. 3 d 1 3 3 0 (10 th C ir

. 2009)

. W hi l e w e under s t and that C o u rt ’ s des i r e t o cont i nue t r eat i ng pos s es s i on o f a w eapon i n pr i s on as a “c r i m e of vi ol ence , ” w e cannot agr ee w i t h i t s r eas oni ng t hatt he l i kel i hood orpot ent i al forvi ol entan d ag gr es s i ve beha vi ort o come about as a r es ul tof the off

ens e i s s uffi ci entfor qual i fi cat i on i n l i ghtof B egay . I d. at1335. B. T he D i s t r i ctC our t erred i n s ent enci ng Pol k as a ca r eer offe nder , butbeca us e he di d notobj ectat s ent enci ng, t he fa ct t hati tw as a n errori s notenough forus t o gr antt he r el i ef11 req u e sted. T he ex i st ence o f t he T enth C i rcui tC ou rt ’s Zuniga deci s i on, fr om w hi ch a di s t r i ctcour tcoul d r eas onabl yconcl ude that o u r Kenney an aly sis w as stil l sou n d af ter B egay , m akes us di s i ncl i ned t o concl ude t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s err orher e w as pl ai n. H ow ever , i t i s notnece s s aryt o det erm i ne i f the err orw as pl ai n i n t hi s i ns t ance , beca us e w e ag ree w i t h t he ar gum entof Pol k’ s at t or neyt hathe ( t he att or ney ) w as i neff ect i ve at s ent enci ng bas ed on his fa il ur e t o r ai s e B egay a n d its a rg u a b le e f f e c t. D efe ndant s ar e notgener al l yper m i t t ed t o at t ack the eff i cac yof thei rcouns el on di r ect appea l , t hough an exc ept i on w i l l be m ad e “[w ] her e the r ecor d i s s uffi ci entt o al l ow det erm i nat i on of i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , [and thus ] an evi dent i ary hear i ng t o devel op t he fa ct s i s notneede d. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Headl ey , 9 2 3 F .2 d 1 0 7 9 , 1 0 8 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). W h ile P o lk ’s a tto rn e yd id a n o u tsta n d in g jo b o n a p p e a l, he f re e ly conce des t hatats ent enci ng he m issed t he ar guabl e ef fec tof B egay . Thi s a dmi s s i on s a t i s fi es Str i ckland ’s r e q u ire m e n ts to pr ove i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , as t he o v ersi ghtw as o b je c tiv e ly d e f

ic ie n t a t th e tim e o f

th e o m is s io n (a s n o te d , B egay had bee n deci ded si x m ont hs befor e Pol k’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng) and pr ej udi ced Pol k ( our hol di ng her e i ndi cat es t hat t he r es ul tof t he s ent enci ng pr ocee di ng w oul d have been di ffe r entt han w hat o c c u rr e d ). See 4 6 6 U
. S

. at 68 7 , 6 8 9 , 6 9 4

. B ec a u s e the re co rd is s u f f icie n t to m a k e th is d e ter m in a tio n , w e c o n c lu d e th a t a f u rth e r c o llate ra l p ro c e e d in g f o r f a c tu a l d e v e lo p m e n t o n th isW e e m p h a siz e th a t w e a re n o t o p e n in g th e d o o r to 2 i neff e c ti ve assi st ance o f cou nsel cl ai m s on d i rectapp eal as a m at t erof cours e. W e ar e, r ather , deal i ng w i t h a veryunus ual cas e her e, i n w hi ch ther e i s a Su p rem e C our tdeci s i on t hat re p re se n ts a m a rk e d c h a n g e in th e law a n d , in a d d iti o n , the re is an ade quat e r ecor d i nvol vi ng hi ghl ycompet entand r es pect ed defe ns e couns el fr eel yacknow l edgi ng t hat hi s fai l ur e t o ci t e that i m por t antnew cas e had nothi ng t o do w i t h a str at egi c dec i s i on b u t w a s s im p lya n o v e rsig h t. 12 i s s u e i s u n n e c e s s a r y. 2
* * * * * A s Kenney no l ongerr emai ns good l aw and pos s es s i on of a w eapon i n pr i s on s houl d notbe cons i der ed a “ cr i m e of v io len c e ” u n d e r th e C a re e r O f f e n d e r G u id e lin e s p o st- B egay , we vaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derand r emand forr es ent enci ng cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.