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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 28 78

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Ja m ie Nico l Ni ls en

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta - Bi sm arck

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Ju ne 15 , 20 18 Fi le d: Ju ly 26, 2 01 8 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re KELLY, ARNOL D, and STRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Ja m ie Nico l Nils en ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of hi s m ot io n to va cat e,

se t a s i d e , o r co rrec t hi s se nt en ce un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 an d Jo hn so n v. Uni te d
St at es , 13 5 S. Ct

. 25 51 (2 01 5)

. In 2 0 1 2
, Nil se n pl ead ed gu il ty to be in g a fel on in

po ss es si on of a fir earm in vi ol at i o n o f 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ), an d in 20 13
, he was

se nt en ced un de r th e Arm ed Care er Cri m in al Act (ACCA), 18 U. S

. C. § 92 4( e)(1 ),ba se d on hi s pr io r Nor th Dak ot a ag gr av at ed as sa ul t co nv ic ti on , an d two Nor th Dak ot a

bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s un de r N.D. Cen t. Co de § 12 .1-2 2- 02 (1 )

. Th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Nil se n’s § 22 55 m ot io n, co nc lu di ng th at hi s ag gr av at ed as sa ul t an d bu rg la ry

co nv ic ti on s st il l qu al ifi ed as vi ol en t fel on ie s un de r th e ACCA. Dur in g th e pe nd en cy of th is ap pe al
, an ot he r pa ne l of th is co ur t he ld th at Nor th Dak ot a bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s do no t qu al ify as vi ol en t fel on ie s un de r th e ACCA. See Uni te d St at es v. Kin ne y , 88 8
F.3 d 36 0, 36 3– 65 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ) (“ [C]on vi ct io ns un de r N.D. Cen t. Co de § 12 .1-2 2-
02

. . . can no t cat eg or ic al ly qu al ify as vi ol e n t f e lo ni es un de r th e ACCA.”), reh ’g de ni ed
, No. 16 -3 76 4 (8 th Ci r. Ju ly 6, 20 18 ) (u np ub li sh ed or de r). “ It is a card in al ru le
in ou r ci rcu it th at on e pa ne l is bo un d by th e de ci si on of a pr io r pa ne l.” Mad er v. Uni te d St at es , 6 5 4 F.3 d 79 4, 80 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ) (q uo ti ng Owsl ey v. Lue bb ers , 28 1 F.3 d 68 7, 69 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 )). Acco rd in gl y , th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t c ou rt is rev ers ed an d th is cas e is rem an de d to th e di st ric t co ur t fo r fu rth er
pr oc eed in gs

.

ARNOLD, Circu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g.

I co nc ur ful ly in th e pe r cu ria m op in io n, bu t writ e se pa rat el y to m ak e a p oi nt

no t rai se d by th is ap pe al
, na m el y , th at th e Nor th Dak ot a bu rg la ry st at ut e, N.D. Cen t. Co de § 12 .1-2 2- 02
, is d i v i s i b l e on it s face

. The st at ut e pr os cri be s a cl as s C fel on y of fen se , se e § 12 .1-2 2- 02 (1 ), an d a cl as s B fel on y of fen se , se e § 12 .1-2 2- 02 (2 ). Si nc e th os e of fen se s carr y di ffer en t pu ni sh m en ts , se e N.D. Cen t. Co de § 12 .1-3 2- 01 (3 ), (4 ),
th ey are di ffer en t of

fen se s, in st ead of di ffer en t m ean s of co m m it ti ng a si ng le of

fen se

. Se e Ma th is v. Uni te d S ta te s , 13 6 S . Ct. 2 24 3, 2 25 6 (2 01 6)

.

In Uni te d St at es v. Ki nn ey , 88 8 F. 3 d 3 6 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ), we as se rte d th at "co nv ic ti on s un de r N.D. Cen t. Co de § 12 .1-2 2- 02

. . . can no t cat eg or ic al ly qu al ify as vi ol en t fel on ie s un de r th e ACCA." Id

. at 36 4. Bu t we co ul d no t ha ve m ean t th at bo th

su bs ect io ns of th e st at ut e are ov erb ro ad si nc e Ki nn ey ne ve r ev en lo ok ed at th e se co nd

su bs ect io n. We con si de red on ly w he th er th e cl as s C bu rg la ry of fen se in N.D. Cent

.

-2

-Co de § 12 .1-2 2- 02 (1 ) is in di vi si bl e an d ov erb ro ad : W e di d no t m en ti on th e na rro wer

cl as s B bu rg la ry of

fen se (s ) in § 12 .1-2 2- 02 (2 ). In Ki nn ey , m or eo ve r, we ap pl ie d th e
cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch on ly to th e ph ras e "b ui ld in g or oc cu pi ed st ru ct ur e" in su bs ect io n (1 ) of th e st at ut e. Se e id

. W e di d no t ev al ua te su bs ect io n (2 ) an d ha d no reas on to do

so

. Kin ne y 's Nor th Dak ot a bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s were on ly of th e cl as s C of fen se , an d
th e arg um en ts on ap pe al fo cu se d on ly on su bs ect io n (1 ). Tho ug h Ki nn ey sp eak s br oa dl y , we ne ed to read it in th e co nt ex t of th e is su e it ad dr es se d an d de ci de d an d

ou gh t to in te rp ret it s ho ld in g as be in g res tri ct ed to th at is su e. Se e Ger man All

. In s. Co

. v. Home Wat er

Su pp ly Co

. , 22 6 U.S. 2 20 , 23 4 (1 91 2)

.

In an ap pr op ria te fu tu re cas e, in ot he r wor ds
, I be li ev e pa rti es are free to rai se th e is su e o f whe th er N.D. Cen t. Co de § 1 2.1 -2 2- 02 (2 ) is in di vi si bl e o r ov erb ro ad

.

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

-3

-