FI LED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T
J UNE 25, 2010

J OHN LEY
CLERK [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

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

No. 0 8- 17 06 2

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

D.C. Dock et No. 0 8- 20 47 3- CR-M GC

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us

RICHAR D LEE ALEXAND ER,

Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

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

th e 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 F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 2 5, 2 01 0)

Befo re TJ OFLAT and COX, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d KORM AN, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. *

COX, Cir cu it Ju dg e:

Ri ch ard Lee Alex an de r ap pe al s th e se nt en ce im po se d fo ll owi ng hi s gu il ty pl ea

to a ch arg e of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. Th e d is tri ct co ur t ad de d a

Honora ble Edwar d R. Korman, United States District J udg e for the Easter n District of New * York, sitting by

desig nation.care er of

fen de r en ha nc em en t to Alex an de r’s se nt en ce be cau se it he ld th at hi s pr i o r

fel on y co nv ic ti on un de r Fl a. St at

. § 79 0.1 5( 2) fo r di sc ha rg in g a fir earm fro m a

ve hi cl e wit hi n 1,0 00 feet of an ot he r pe rs on qu al ifi ed as a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r th e

Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s. Alex an de r co nt en ds th at th e en ha nc em en t was

im pr op er. App lyin g t h e f

ram ewo rk an no un ced by th e Su pr em e Co ur t in Beg ay v.

Uni te d S ta te s , 55 3 U.S. 1 37 , 12 8 S. Ct

. 15 81 (2 00 8)

, we co nc lu de th at a co nv ic ti on

un de r Fl a. St at

. § 79 0.1 5( 2) in vo lv es co nd uc t th at is “ si m il ar in ki nd an d de gr ee of

ris k po se d” to bu rg la ry , ars on , ex to rti on , an d c rimes in vo lv in g th e us e of

ex pl os iv es —t he cri m es en um er at ed in the G uid el ine s’ de fi ni ti on of cri m e of vi ol en ce.

U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .2(a ). Ther efo re, we h ol d t ha t Alex an de r’s co nv ic ti on qu al ifi es as a

cri m e o f vi ol en ce.

Alex an de r al so co nt en ds th at th e co ur t erre d by fai li ng to award cred it ag ai ns t

hi s se nt en ce fo r ti m e th at he se rv ed in st at e cu st od y

. W e co nc l u d e th at th e di st ric t

co ur t di d no t ha ve au th or it y to award cred it fo r ti m e s e r v e d i n st at e cu st od y

.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd & Pro cedu ra l H is to ry

O n Fe br ua ry 4, 20 08

, Alex an de r was arre st ed by Mi am i Gard en s po li ce of fic er s

an d was ch arg ed

, un de r Fl or id a la w, fo r po ss es si on of na rco ti cs an d po ss es si on of a

fir earm by a con vi ct ed fel on . He was d et ai ne d a t t he Mi am i-Da de Co un ty Jail . On

2May 30

, 20 08

, he was in di ct ed on fed eral ch arg es st em m in g fro m th e sa m e in ci de nt

.

A th ree- co un t in di ct m en t al le ge d a vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ) fo r po ss es si on

of a fir earm by a co nv ic te d fel on , a vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 4( a) fo r po ss es si on of

co cai ne , an d a vi ol at io n of se ct io n 84 4( a) for po ss es si on of m ari juan a. On Ju ne 13

,

20 08

, he was tra ns ferr ed fro m st at e c u s t o d y to fed eral cu st od y , an d th e Fl or id a

ch arg es were d is m is se d.

Alex an de r pl ead ed gu il ty to po ss es si on of a fir earm by a co nv ic te d fel on , co un t

on e of th e fed eral in di ct m en t. Pu rs u a n t t o a pl ea ag reem en t, th e Gov ern m en t

di sm is se d co un ts two an d th ree, th e dr ug ch arg es

. The Uni te d St at es Pro ba ti on Offi ce

th en pr od uc ed a Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n Rep or t (“ PSI” ). Alex an de r ha d pr ev io us ly

be en co nv ic te d of dis ch arg in g a fire arm fro m a ve hi cl e wit hi n 1,0 00 feet of an ot he r

pe rs on in vi ol at io n of Fl a. St at

. § 79 0.1 5( 2)

. The PSI fact or ed th is co nv ic ti on as a

“ cri m e of vi ol en ce” fo r pu rp os es of U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(a )(4 )(A), whi ch in crea se d th e

reco m m en de d b as e o ffen se lev el fro m fou rte en to twen ty.

Alex an de r fil ed an ob

jecti on to th e PSI; he arg ue d th a t t h e p r io r co nv ic ti on

un de r Fl a. St at . § 79 0.1 5( 2) di d no t q ua li fy as a cri m e o f vi ol en ce in li gh t of Beg ay

be cau se it was no t “ pu rp os efu l, vi ol en t, an d ag gr e s s i v e ” b e ha vi or

. 55 3 U.S. at

__ ,

1 2 8 S

. Ct

. at 15 86

. At th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , Alex an de r reas se rte d th at h i s p r i o r

co nv ic ti on sh ou ld n o t b e cat eg or iz ed as a cri m e of vi ol en ce, bu t th e di st ric t co ur t

3di sa gr eed

. Rea so ni ng th at an en ha nc em en t is ap pr op ria te whe re a p rio r of fen se

in vo lv ed be ha vi or th at co ul d “ res ul t i n a se rio us po te nt ia l ris k of ph y si cal in jury to

an ot he r,” th e co ur t he ld th at a co nv ic ti on un de r Fl a. St at . § 79 0.1 5( 2) qu al ifi es as a

cri m e of vi ol en ce an d th at th e PSI pr op erl y se t Alex an de r’s ba se of fen se le ve l at

twen ty. ( R

. 2

- 4 0 at 8- 9.) Afte r a th ree- le ve l ad jus tm en t fo r acce pt an ce of

res po ns ib il it y , th e co ur t de te rm in ed th at Alex an de r’s Gu i d el in es of fen se le ve l was

se ve nt een , th at hi s cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y was IV, an d th at th e ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s

ran ge was th irt y -s ev en to fo rt y- s i x mon th s. The co ur t co ns id ered th e rel ev an t

se nt en ci ng fact or s an d im po se d a se nt en ce of fo rty-th ree m on th s im pr is on m en t to be

fo ll owe d by a te rm of th ree- y ears su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Alex an de r th en req ue st ed th at

th e co ur t gr an t cred it ag ai ns t or m od ify hi s se nt en ce to acco un t fo r th e ti m e he sp en t

in st at e cu st od y fro m th e da te of hi s arre st to th e da te he was tra ns ferr ed to fed eral

cu st od y . The co ur t d ecl in ed to do so . Alex an de r ap pe al s.

II . Is su es on Appea l & Cont enti on s o f the Pa rti es

W e fir st co ns id er whe th er a co nv ic ti on un de r Fl a. Stat. § 79 0.1 5( 2) fo r wil lfu ll y

di sc ha rg in g a fir earm fro m a ve hi cl e wit hi n 1,0 00 feet of an ot he r pe rs on qu al ifi es as

a c r i me of vi ol en ce as de fin ed by U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2 (a) an d th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s

op in io n in Beg ay

. Alex an de r arg ue s th at

, ap pl y in g th e fram ewo rk se t fo rth in Beg ay ,

hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on do es no t qu al ify as a cri m e of vi ol en ce be cau se a vi ol at io n of Fl a.

4St at

. § 79 0.1 5( 2) do es no t pr es en t a se rio us ris k of in jury to an ot he r an d is no t si m il ar

in ki nd as well as in de gr ee of ris k po se d to th e cri m es li st ed a s ex am pl es in §

4B 1.2 (a)( 2) —b ur gl ary, ars on , ex to rti on , an d cri m es in vo lv in g th e us e of ex pl os iv es

.

The Gov ern m en t co un te rs th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y cl as si fie d Alex an de r’s pr io r

co nv ic ti on as a cri m e of vi ol en ce be cau se wil lfu ll y di sc ha rg in g a fir earm is in he ren tl y

vi ol en t an d ag gr es si ve an d be cau se th e cri m e po se s a gr eat er po te nt ia l ris k of ph y si cal

in jury to an ot he r th an m an y ot he r of fen se s h el d t o b e cri m es of v io le nc e.

Alex an de r al so arg ue s t ha t he is en ti tl ed to cred it ag ai ns t h is sen te nc e fo r th e

ti m e th at he sp en t in st at e cu st od y ba se d on th e in ci de nt t h a t u l ti m at el y le d to hi s

co nv i c t i o n in th is cas e. He arg ue s th at un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 85 (b ), a de fen da nt is

en ti tl ed to cred it for an y

ti m e h e h as sp en t i n o ffi ci al de te nt io n p rio r to th e d at e o f

se nt en ci ng

. The Gov ern m en t co un te rs th at th e le ga l au th or it y to cal cu la te cred it fo r

ti m e se rv ed un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 85 (b ) is ve st ed in th e Att or ne y Gen eral

. A n d,

ex ha us ti on of ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s is a juri sd ic ti on al pr ereq ui si te to an y act io n

ch al le ng in g th e cal cu la ti on of ti m e-s erv ed cred it

. Bec au se Alex an de r do es no t al le ge

th at he e x ha us te d hi s ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s, th e Gov ern m en t arg ue s, th e di st ric t

co ur t p ro pe rly decl in ed to award cred it for ti m e se rv ed in st at e cu st od y

.

5II I. St an da rd o f Rev ie w

W e co ns id er de no vo a di s t r i c t co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n of th e Sen te nc in g

Gui de li ne s an d th e ap pl ic at io n of la w to se nt en ci ng is su es

. Uni te d St at es v. Ll an os

Ago st ad er o , 48 6 F .3d 11 94 , 11 96 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ).

IV. Dis cus si on

A. Cr ime o

f Vi ol en ce

The Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s pr ov id e fo r a ba se of fen se le ve l of fo ur te en fo r a

vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 )

, p o s s e s s i o n of a fir earm by a co nv ic te d fel on

.

U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(a )(6 ). The ba se of fen se le ve l is in crea se d to twen ty if th e de fen da nt

ha s a pr io r co nv ic ti on fo r a cri m e of vi ol en ce. Id

. § 2K2 .1(a )(4 )(A). Thi s in crea se s

th e ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng ran ge fo r a de fen da nt wit h a cat eg or y IV cri m in al hi st or y , li ke

Alex an de r, fro m 27 -3 3 m on th s im pr is on m en t to 51 -6 3 m on th s im pr is on m en t. Id

. Ch

.

5, Pt . A. T he Gui de li ne s d efi ne “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” a s

an y of fen se un de r fed eral or st at e la w, pu ni sh ab le by im pr is on m en t fo r

a te rm ex ceed in g on e y ear, th at –( 1) ha s as an el em en t th e us e, at te m pt ed

us e, or th reat en ed us e of ph y si cal fo rce ag ai ns t th e pe rs on of an ot he r, or (2 ) is bu rg la ry of a dwe ll i n g , a r s o n, or ex to rti on , in vo lv es us e of

ex pl os iv es , 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.

U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2 (a). The Gov ern m en t co nc ed es th at th e cri m e in t h i s c a s e,

di sc ha rg in g a fir earm fro m a ve hi cl e wit hi n 1,0 00 feet of an ot he r pe rs on , do es no t fal l

6un de r su bs ect io n on e of th is de fin it io n, an d we ag ree. And , t he cri m e is no t on e of

th os e en um erat ed in su bs ect io n two

. At is su e is whe th er th is of fen se fal ls wit hi n th e

res id ua l pr ov is io n o f su bs ect io n two —wh et he r it “ 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

. § 4 B1 .2(a )(2 ).

In Beg a y , Ja mes v. Uni te d St at es , 5 50 U.S. 1 92 , 1 27 S. Ct . 1 58 6 (2 00 7) , a nd

C h a m b e r s v. Uni te d St at es ,

__ U.S.

__ , 12 9 S. Ct

. 68 7 (2 00 9)

, th e Su pr em e C o u r t

an al y zed th e de fin it io n of “ vi o l e n t fel on y ” un de r th e Arm ed Care er Cri m in al Act

(“ ACCA”)

. 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (i) -(i i). Co ns id eri ng whe th er a cri me is a

“v io le nt fel on y ” un de r th e ACCA is si m il ar to co ns id eri ng whe th er a co n v i c t i o n

qu al ifi es as a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” un de r U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2 (a) be cau se “ th e de fin it io ns

fo r bo th te rm s are vi rtu al ly id en ti cal .” Uni te d St at es v. Ta yl or , 48 9 F.3 d 11 12

, 11 13

(1 1t h Cir. 20 07 ) (q uo ta ti on an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The de fin it io ns pr ov id e th e sa m e

ex am pl e of fen se s: bu rg la ry , ars on , ex to rti on , an d cri m e s in vo lv in g th e us e of

ex pl os iv es

. And

, th e res id ua l cl au se s are id en ti cal ; th ey cl as si fy as vi ol en t an y fel on y

th at “ ot he rwis e in vo lv es co nd uc t t ha t p res en ts a po te nt ia l ri sk of ph y si cal in jury to

an ot he r.” Co mpa re 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (ii ) (d efi ni ng “ vi o le nt fel on y ”), wi th

U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2) (d efi ni ng “ cri m e of vi ol en ce”)

. Acco rd in gl y , we lo ok to th e

Su pr em e Co ur t’s op in io ns ap pl y in g th e ACCA, in cl ud in g Beg ay , Ja mes , an d

Ch a m b e r s , f or gu id an ce in co ns id eri ng whe th er an of fen se qu al ifi es as a cri m e of

7vi ol en ce un de r th e Sen te nc in g G u i d el in es

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Har ri s , 58 6 F.3 d

12 83 , 12 85 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ).

The fir st st ep of th e “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” an al y si s is to id en ti f y th e sp eci fic

c r i me at is su e. In Ja mes , th e Su pr em e Co ur t in st ru ct ed th at co ur ts sh ou ld ap pl y a

“ cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch ” to th is st ep of th e an al y si s. 5 50 U.S. at 20 2, 12 7 S. Ct

. at

15 93 -9 4. Und er th is ap pr oa ch

, we “ lo ok on ly to th e fact of co n v i c ti on an d th e

st at ut or y de fin it io n of th e pr io r of fen se , an d do no t ge ne ral ly co n s i d e r th e

pa rti cu la riz ed fact s di sc lo se d by th e reco rd of co nv ic ti on .” Id

. 55 0 U.S. at 20 2, 12 7

S. Ct

. at 15 94 (ci ta ti on an d qu ot at io n om it te d)

. W e “ co ns id er whet he r th e el em en ts

of th e of fen se are of th e type th at wou ld ju s ti fy it s in cl us io n wit hi n th e res id ua l

pr ov is io n, wit ho ut in qu iri ng in to th e sp eci fic co nd uc t of th is pa rti cu la r of fen de r.” Id

.

(em ph as is om it te d)

. In ot he r wor ds

, we lo ok to th e way th e cri m e is co m m it te d in th e

“ or di na ry cas e” or th e “ ge ne ric se ns e”; we do no t ex am in e th e fact s th at ga ve ris e to

a pa rti cu la r co nv ic ti on

. Se e Beg ay , 55 3 U.S. at

__ ,12 8 S. Ct

. at 15 84

. W he n we

co ns id er cr im es un de r th e res id ua l p ro vi si on , “ we pa y att en ti on to th e way

th at th e 1

st at e st at ut or y sc he m e id en ti fie s t he rel ev an t cr im e. Alt ho ug h we l oo k a t th e cri m e

“[T] he cate g orica l approa ch chang es slightly when a court analy zes a state crime under the 1

residual clause

, as is the case here

, as opposed to a state crime enumer ated” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2)( B) (ii) or U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2( a)( 2). Harrison

, 5 5 8 F. 3 d at 1285. When considering an

enumer ated crime, courts define the crime in its g ener ic sense, “re g ardle ss of its exact definition or label,” beca

use courts seek to ensure a c o n s i s t ent definiti on of a word that Congr ess s elec ted. Id. (quoting Taylor v. United States

, 495 U.S. 575, 599, 110 S. C t. 2143, 2158 (1990)).

8as it is ‘ord in ari ly co m m it te d,’ we fo cu s on t h e e l em en ts of th e st at e cri m e to

de te rm in e th e way in whi ch it is ord in ari ly com m it te d.” Uni te d St at es v. Har ri so n ,

55 8 F.3 d 12 80

, 12 85 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at th e Su pr em e co ur t, in Ja mes ,

Beg ay , and Ch amb er

s , lo ok ed to th e p art ic ul ar s ta te st at ut es to su pp ly t he el em en ts

of th e rel ev an t cr im e).

Afte r id en ti fy in g ho w th e cri m e is “ or di na ril y co m m it te d,” we th en ad dr es s

whe th er it is a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce.” Pr io r to Beg ay , cou rts co ns id ered on ly whe th er

a cri m e po se d a se rio us po te nt ia l ris k of ph y si cal in jury, co m pa rab le to th e ris k po se d

by th e en um erat ed cri m es

. If so , it qu al ifi ed as a cri m e of vi ol en ce. Fo r ex am pl e, in

Ja mes , th e Co ur t as se ss ed th e ris k of in jury po se d by an at te m

pt ed bu rg la ry

. Bec au se

th e cri m e pr es en te d a se rio us ris k of vi ol en t co nf ro nt at io n be twee n a wo ul d- be

bu rg la r an d an in no cen t pe rs on , th e Co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e ris k was co m pa rab le to

a co m pl et ed bu rg la ry , an d it he ld th at at te m pt ed bu rg la ry qu al i f

i e s a s a “ vi ol en t

fel on y ” u nd er t he ACCA. Ja mes , 55 0 U.S. at 20 3- 04 , 12 7 S . Ct. at 15 94 -9 5.

In Beg ay , th e Co ur t enh an ced th e te st fo r co ns id eri ng whe th er an of fen se is a

“ vi ol en t fel on y ” un de r th e res id ua l pr ov is io n of th e ACCA. The Co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at

t h e pu rp os e of th e ACCA is to pu ni sh th os e who se pr io r co nd uc t de m on st rat es “ a

li ke li ho od of fu tu re vi ol en t, ag gr es si ve , an d pu rp os efu l ‘arm ed care er cri m in al ’

be ha vi or

. . . .” 55 3 U.S. at

__ , 12 8 S. Ct

. at 15 88

. And

, a pr io r co nv ic ti on fo r cri m es

9su ch as bu rg la ry an d ars on wou l d “s h o w a n in crea se d li ke li ho od th at th e of fen de r

[wh o la te r po ss es se s a fir earm ] is th e ki nd of pe rs on who m ig ht de li be rat el y po in t th e

gu n an d pu ll th e tri gg er.” Id

. 55 3 U.S. at

__ , 12 8 S. Ct

. at 15 87

. The refo re, th e Co ur t

co nc lu de d, a cri m e m

us t po se a se rio us po te nt ia l ris k of ph y si cal in jury to qu al ify as

a v io le nt fel on y , b ut th is al on e is in su ffi ci en t. The Co ur t he ld th at a cri m e m us t b e

“ ro ug hl y si m il ar, in ki nd as well as in de gr ee of ris k po se d,” to th e cri m es en um erat ed

in th e st at ut e: bu rg la ry , ars on , ex to rti on , an d cri m es in vo lv in g th e us e of ex pl os iv es

.

Id

. 55 3 U.S. at

__ , 12 8 S . Ct. at 15 85

.

Beg ay co ns id ered whe th er a co nv ic ti on fo r dr iv i n g un de r th e in flu en ce of

al co ho l was a “ vi ol en t fel on y .” 55 3 U.S. at

__ , 12 8 S. Ct

. at 1 5 84

. The Co ur t

as su m ed th at DUI in vo lv ed co nd uc t th at pr es en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ris k of ph y si cal

i nju ry to an ot he r, bu t it he ld th at th e of fen se di ffer ed fro m th e en um erat e d c r i mes

.

Id

. It reas on ed th at th e li st ed cri m es “ al l typic al ly in vo lv e pu rp os efu l, ‘vio le nt ,’ an d

‘agg res si ve ’ co nd uc t,” whe reas DUI is a cri m e of st ric t li ab il it y

. Id

. 55 3 U.S. at

__ ,

12 8 S. Ct

. at 15 86

. It ad de d th at fo r pu rp os es of th e ACCA, a p r i o r r e c o r d of DUI

“ di ffer s fro m a pr io r re c o rd of vi ol en t an d ag gr es si ve cri m es co m m it te d

in te nt io na ll y ,” id

. 55 3 U.S.

__ , 12 8 S

. Ct

. at 15 88

, an d “ is si m pl y to o un li ke th e

pr ov is io n’s li st ed ex am

pl es fo r us to be li ev e th at Co ng res s in te nd ed th e pr ov is io n to

co ve r it .” Id

. 55 3 U.S. at

__ , 12 8 S . Ct. at 15 84

.

10In Ch amb er s , th e Co ur t of

fere d ad di t i o n a l in si gh t whi ch gu id es th e “ vi ol en t

fel on y ” an al y si s un de r t h e A C C A a n d th e “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” an al y si s un de r th e

Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s. Ch amb er s he ld th at a co nv ic ti on fo r kn owi ng ly fai li ng to

rep or t to a pe na l in st it ut io n was no t a vi ol en t fel on y un de r th e ACCA.

__ U.S. at

__ ,

1 2 9 S

. Ct . a t 69 3. It ob se rv ed th at fai li ng to rep or t “ am ou nt s to a fo rm of in act io n ,

a far cry fro m th e ‘pur

p o s e f u l, “ vi ol en t,” an d “ ag gr es si ve ” co nd uc t’ po te nt ia ll y at

is su e whe n an of

fen de r us es ex pl os iv es a g ai ns t pr op ert y , co m m it s ars on , bu rg le s a

dwe ll in g or res id en ce, or en ga ge s in cert ai n fo rm s of ex to rti on .”

__ U.S.

__ , 12 9 S. Ct

.

68 7, 69 1 (20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Beg ay , 55 3 U.S. at _ _, 1 28 S. Ct. at 15 86 ). In Ch amb er s ,

th e Co ur t lo ok ed to st at is ti cal da ta to as se ss th e ris k po se d by a fai lu re to rep or t. It

rel ie d, in pa rt, on a Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on Rep or t th at ex am in ed cas es

in vo lv in g e sc ap es ov er a t wo year pe rio d. Id

.

__ U.S. a t

__ , 12 9 S . Ct. at 69 2. Th e

Co ur t i n t e r p r et ed th e rep or t, whi ch id en ti fie d few in st an ces of es cap es le ad in g to

vi ol en t co nf

ro nt at io ns , to “ st ro ng ly sup po rt t he in tu it iv e b el ie f th at fai lu re to re po rt

do es no t in vo lv e a se rio us po te nt ia l ris k of ph y si cal in jury.” Id

.

__ U.S.

__ , 12 9 S. Ct

.

at 69 2. W e ha ve si nc e read Ch amb er s to su gg es t “ th at st at is ti cal ev id en ce pl ay s a

ro le in as se ss i n g t he ris k of no n- en um erat ed cri m es un de r th e res id ua l cl au se .”

Har ri so n , 55 8 F .3d at 1 28 9.

11In Har ri so n , a cas e in whi ch we ap pl ie d Ja mes , Beg ay , an d Ch amb er s to ho ld

th at a Fl or id a co nv ic ti on fo r wil lfu ll y fle ei ng a po li ce of fic er in a m ot or ve hi cl e was

no t a v io le nt fel on y , we hel d t ha t Ja mes an d Beg ay est ab li sh ed a th ree- st ep tes t:

Fi r s t , wh at is th e rel ev an t cat eg or y of cri m e, de te rm in ed by l oo ki ng to ho w th e cri m e is or di na ril y co m m it te d? Seco nd

, do es t h a t cri m e po se

a “ se rio us po te nt ia l ris k of ph y si cal in ju r y” th at is si m il ar in de gr ee to th e ris ks po se d b y

th e en um erat ed cri m es ? Thi rd , is th at cri m e si m il ar in ki nd to th e en um erat ed cri m es ?

Id

. at 12 87

. Afte r ap pl y in g th is te st

, we co nc lu de d th at fle ei ng fro m a po li ce of fic er

in a m ot or ve hi cl e is no t “ su ffi ci en t l y a g g res si ve an d vi ol en t en ou gh to be li ke th e

en um erat ed ACCA cri m es .” Id

. at 12 95

. W e ex pl ai ne d th at th e fle ei ng cri m e “ se em s

m or e ap pr op ria te ly ch arac te riz ed a s th e cri m e of a fle ei ng co ward —n ot an arm ed

care er cri m in al be nt on in fli ct in g ph y si cal in jury.” Id

. at 12 96

. W e ad de d, “ su ch

co nd uc t do es no t ‘sho w an in crea se d li ke li ho od th at th e of fen de r is th e ki nd of pe rs on

who m ig ht de li be rat el y po in t th e gu n an d pu ll th e tri gg er.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Beg ay , 55 3

U.S. at

__ , 12 8 S. Ct

. at 15 87 ). We a l s o su gg es te d, ho wev er, th at “ ou r co nc lu si on

wou ld be di ffer en t were th e st at ut e to cri m in al iz e co nd uc t th at

, in th e or di na ry cas e,

in vo lv es an of

fen de r st ep pi ng on th e ga s an d dr iv in g away reck le ss ly wit ho ut reg ard

fo r th e sa fet y

of o th ers .” Id

. at 1 29 5.

In Har ri s , we ad dr es se d a co nv ic ti on un de r a se pa rat e s e c t i o n o f th e sa m e

Fl or id a st at ut e, a pr ov is io n th at pr os cri be d fle ei ng a po li ce of fic er in a m ot or ve hi cl e

12at a hi

gh sp eed or wit h a wa nt on di sr eg ar d fo r th e sa fe ty of pe rs on s or pr op er ty

. 58 6

F.3 d at 12 84

. W e ap pl ie d th e th ree- st ep an al y si s se t fo rth in Har ri so n an d co nc lu de d

th at th is of

fen se qu al ifi es as a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s. Id

.

at 12 89

. W e reas on ed th at fle ei ng at a hi gh sp eed or wit h wa nt on di sr eg ar d fo r th e

sa fe ty of pe rs on s or pr op er ty de m on st rat es a “ de gr ee of cal lo us ne ss to ward ris k,” id

.

at 12 88 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

, an d “ m or e cl o s e l y res em bl es th e ch arac te ris ti cs of a

bu rg la r co m

m it ti ng a cri m e, aware th at vi ol en ce m ig ht en su e, or of an ars on is t us in g

a fir e as a weap on , ev en wit ho ut th e in te nt of bu rn in g so m eo ne .” Id

. a t 1 2 8 7

- 88

.

Acco rd in gl y , we dis tin gui she d th is of fen se fro m m erel y fle ei ng fro m po li ce, th e cri m e

at is su e in Har ri so n , an d co nc lu de d th at i t was “ si m il ar in ki nd an d de gr ee” to th e

en um erat ed cri m es

. Id

. at 12 88

.

W e ad dr es s whe th er a co nv ic ti on un de r Fl a. St at

. § 79 0.1 5( 2) qu al ifi es as a

cri m e o f vi ol en ce un de r th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s wit h th e be ne fit of t he Su pr em e

Co ur t’s op in io ns in Ja mes , Beg ay , an d Ch amb er s , an d ou r op in io ns in Har ri so n an d

Har ri s . W e h ol d t ha t i t d oe s.

W e be gi n by ap pl y in g th e “ cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch ” to id en ti fy ho w th e cri m e is

co m m it te d in th e or di na ry cas e. “ W e read th e face of [th e st at ut e] it se lf to di sc ern th e

cri m e as it is or di na ril y co m m it te d.” Har ri s , 58 6 F .3d at 1 28 8. Th e st at ut e is ti tl ed

“ Dis ch arg in g Fi rear m in Pu bl ic .” Sect io n two

, whi ch we co ns id er he re, read s “ [a]ny

13oc cu pa nt of an y ve hi cl e who kn owi ng ly an d wil lfu ll y di sc ha rg es an y fir earm fro m th e

ve hi cl e wit hi n 10 00 feet of an y pe rs on co m m it s a fel on y of th e se co nd de gr ee

. . . .”

Fl a. St at . § 79 0.1 5( 2)

. The Fl or id a Su pr em e Co ur t h as st at ed th at “ [s ]hoo ti ng fro m

a ve hi cl e in vi ol at io n of se ct io n 79 0.1 5( 2) req ui res pr oo f o f t w o el em en ts : (1 ) th e

de fen da nt kn owi ng ly and wil lfu ll y di sc ha rg ed a fir earm fro m a ve hi cl e; an d (2 ) th e

di sc ha rg e oc cu rred wit hi n 1,0 00 feet of an y pe rs on .” Val de s v. St at e , 3 So

. 3d 10 67

,

10 71 (Fl a. 20 09 ). So

, to vi ol at e th e st at ut e, a pe rs on m us t de li be rat el y fir e a weap on

fro m a ve hi cl e, bu t t he pe rs on ne ed no t ai m th e weap on at an ot he r pe rs on or t hi ng

.

And

, whi le an ot he r pe rs on m us t be wit hi n 1,0 00 feet

, th e sh oo te r ne ed no t be aware

of hi s or he r pr es en ce. One Fl or id a co ur t, in ad d r e s s i n g w h et he r do ub le jeop ard y

co nc ern s were pr es en te d by du al co nv ic ti on s un de r th is se ct io n and an ot he r Fl or id a

st at ut e pr os cri bi ng th e sh oo ti ng in to a bu il di ng or ve hi cl e, ex pl ai ne d th at th e “ pr im ary

ev il ” ta rg et ed by se ct io n 79 0.1 5( 2) “ is th e po te nt ia l fo r so m eo ne in th e pu bl ic do m ai n

to be in jure d or ki ll ed wit ho ut an y m al ic e or in te nt to in fli ct bo di ly ha rm .” Val de s v.

St at e , 97 0 So

. 2d 41 4, 42 0 (Fl a. 3d DCA 20 07 ). The co ur t wen t so far as to ad d th at

“ se ct io n 79 0.1 5 pu ni sh es f i r i n g a gu n in to th e ai r wit h no ev il in te nt an d se ek s to

pr ev en t ev en in no cen t re v e l ers cel eb rat in g th e ne w y ear fro m di sc ha rg in g a gu n in

pu bl ic .” Id

. at 4 21

.

14Th e b are el em en ts of th e of fen se , wit h th e be ne fit of th es e st at em en ts by th e

Fl or id a co ur ts in te rp ret in g th e cri m e in a di ffer en t c o n t e x t

, d riv e ou r as se ss m en t of

ho w se ct io n 79 0.1 5( 2) is vi ol at ed “ in th e or di na ry cas e.” Howev er, we al so co m pa re

th e of fen se at is su e wit h ot he r pr ov is io ns of se ct io n 79 0.1 5 to ad d co nt ex t an d to

be tt er un de rs ta nd th e Fl or id a co ur ts ’ in te rp ret at io ns of th e pr ov is io n. Se e Har ri so n ,

55 8 F .3d at 1 29 3 (no ti ng th e co ur t’s categ or iz at io n of fleei ng of fen se s refl ect ed th e

Fl o r i d a le gi sl at ur e’s de ci si on to di ffer en ti at e be twee n di ffer en t types of fle ei ng

be ha vi or ). Sect io n on e of th e st at ut e pr os cri be s kn owi ng ly di sc ha rg in g a fir earm in

a p ub li c p la ce. Fl a. St at . § 7 90 .15 (1 ). Thi s cr im e is cla ss ifi ed as a m is de m ean or of

th e fir st de gr ee a n d i s p u n i sh ab le by up to on e-year im pr is on m en t. Fl a. St at

. §

7 7 5.0 82 (4 )(a)

. Sect io n two of th e st at ut e ad ds th e el em en ts of (1 ) fir in g fro m a

ve hi cl e; an d (2 ) do in g so wit hi n 1,0 00 feet of an ot he r pe rs on

. Thi s of fen se is a cl as stwo fel on y an d i s p u n i sh ab le by up to fif te en -y ears im

pr is on m en t. Fl a. St at

. §

77 5.0 82 (3 )(c)

. The c a t e g o riz at io n of th es e of fen se s— cl as s- on e m is de m ean or as

op po se d t o c la ss -two fel on y —as well as th e va ria ti on in m ax im um pe na lt ie s— on ey ear im pr is on m en t as op po se d to fif te en -y ears im

pr is on m en t— cl as si fie s th is of fen se

as su bs ta nt ia ll y m or e se rio us th an m erel y di sc ha rg i n g a fir earm in a pu bl ic pl ace.

W hi le se ct io n 79 0.1 5 m ay in de ed “ se ek [] to pr ev en t ev en i nn oc en t rev el ers

cel eb rat in g t he ne w y ear from di sc ha rg in g a gu n i n p ub li c,” we s us pe ct th at sec ti on

1579 0.1 5( 2) in te nd s to ta rg et m or e eg reg io us co nd uc t. W e do no t id en ti fy th e cri m e at

is su e ba se d on ou r su sp ic io ns of th e in te nt of th e Fl or id a le gi sl at ur e; rat he r, we rel y

on th e el em en ts of th e of fen se

. N e v e r t h e l es s, th e fact th at Fl or id a la w cl as si fie s

di sc ha rg in g a f

i r earm fro m a ve hi cl e wit hi n 1,0 00 feet of an ot he r as m or e

r e pr eh en si bl e th an m erel y di sc ha rg in g a fir earm in pu bl ic ai ds us in ev al ua ti ng th e

na tu re o f th at co nd uc t.

Hav in g de te rm in ed ho w th e cri m e is or di na ril y co m m it te d, we ad dr es s whe th er

it po se s a “ se rio us po te nt ia l ris k of ph y si cal in jury to an ot he r.” The Su pr em e Co ur t,

in as se ss in g th e ris k of cri m es un de r th e res id ua l pr ov is i o n , h a s us ed st at is ti cal

ev id en ce to gu id e it s an al y si s. Se e Har ri so n , 55 8 F.3 d at 12 89 -9 0 (d es cri bi ng th e us e

of st at is ti cs in Ja mes , Beg ay , an d Ch amb er s to as se ss ris k)

. Here, we are wit ho ut th e

be ne fit of e mp i r i c a l ev id en ce, so we are le ft to rel y on ou r own co m m on -s en se

an al y si s of whe th er th is co nd uc t po se s a se rio us po te nt ia l ris k of ph y si cal in jury. Id

.

at 12 95 n.2 6 ( n o t i n g t h a t em pi ric al ev id en ce is no t req ui red to as se ss ris k)

. W e

co nc lu de th at it do es

.

The fir in g of a weap on po se s a ris k th at a bysta nd er will be in jure d by a st ray

bu ll et . The ran ge of e ve n a sm al l h an dg un ex ceed s t he ran ge of s ig ht of th e pe rs on

fir in g th e gu n. Eve n if th e sh oo te r ai m s th e weap on at an ap pr op ria te ta rg et

, an d ev en

if th e s h o o t e r d is ch arg es th e weap on in an area he or sh e be li ev es is free of

16bysta nd ers , th ere i s a r is k th at th e bu ll et wil l str ay fro m it s targ et an d in jure an ot he r

pe rs on

. Thi s ris k in crea se s su bs ta nt ia ll y whe n th e fir earm is d i s c h a r g e d fro m a

ve hi cl e. Not on ly i s th e sh oo te r’s ran ge of vi si on di m in is he d, bu t ve hi cl es are

co m m on ly lo cat ed on ro ad s an d pa rk in g area s, whi ch are of te n ad jacen t to in ha bi te d

bu il di n gs an d po pu la te d by dr iv ers of ot he r ve hi cl es , th ei r pa ss en ge rs , an d

pe de st ria ns

. Add in g to th is th e el em en t th at an ot he r in di vi du al m us t be wit hi n 1,0 00

feet fu rth er in crea se s th e li ke li ho od th at se ct io n 79 0.1 5( 2) is vi ol at ed un de r

ci rcu m st an ces in whi ch th ere is a st ro ng ch an ce th at

, in te nt io na ll y or no t, so m e ot he r

pe rs on wil l be st ru ck by a bu ll et

. Of co ur se , as is th e cas e wit h m os t cri m es , we co ul d

co nt em pl at e a sc en ari o in whi ch se ct io n 79 0.1 5( 2) co ul d be vi ol at ed wit ho ut po si ng

a se rio us ris k of in

jury to an ot he r. Bu t, we as se ss th e ris k of in jury ge ne ral ly, no t by

im ag in in g sc en ari os in whi ch th e of fen se co ul d be co m

m it te d sa fel y

. Se e Ja mes , 55 0

U.S. at 20 7, 12 7 S. Ct

. at 15 97 (2 00 7) (ex pl ai ni ng th at th e res id ua l pr ov is io n “ sp eak s

in te rm s of a ‘pot en ti al ris k’” an d do es no t req ui re “ m et ap hysic al cert ai nt y ” th at

co m m is si on of a cri m e wil l po se a ris k of inju ry ). W e co nc lu de th at

, as th e cri m e is

ge ne ral ly co m

m it te d, it po se s a se rio us po te nt ia l ris k of ph y si cal in jury to an ot he r at

le as t si m il ar to th e ris k po se d by th e cri m es en um erat ed in U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2)

.

W e tu rn no w to whe th er a vi ol at io n of se ct io n 79 0.1 5( 2) is “ ro ug hl y si m il ar in

ki nd ” to th e en um erat ed of fen se s— bu rg la ry , ars on , ex to rti on , an d cri m es in vo lv in g

17th e us e of ex pl os iv es

. In Beg ay , th e Su pr em e C o u r t ex pl ai ne d th at th es e cri m es

typic al ly in vo lv e “ pu rp os efu l, vi ol en t, an d ag gr es si ve ” co nd uc t. 55 3 U.S. at

__ , 12 8

S. Ct . a t 15 86

. So m e co ur ts ha v e i n t e rp ret ed th is la ng ua ge to m ean th at an of fen se

is a cri m e of vi ol en ce on ly if it in cl ud es , as an el em en t of th e of f e n s e , a n in te nt to

cau se ha rm

. Se e, e.g

. , Uni te d St at es v. W oo ds

, 57 6 F.3 d 40 0, 41 2- 13 (7 th Ci r. 20 09 )

(“ [T]he res id ua l cl au se en co m pa ss es on ly pu rp os efu l cri m es ; cri m es wit h th e men s

re a of reck le ss ne ss do no t fal l wit hi n it s sc op e”); Uni te d St at es v. Her ri ck

, 54 5 F.3 d

53 , 56 -5 7 (1 st Cir

. 20 08 ) (h ol di ng ho m ic id e by ne gl ig en t op erat io n of a v eh ic le no t

a cri m e of vi ol en ce). Sect io n 79 0.1 5( 2) m ay be vi ol at ed a b s e n t a n y i nt en t to ha rm

pe rs on s or pr op ert y

. So

, if we were to read Beg ay t o d e mand a sp eci fic in te nt to

ha rm , we m

us t co nc lu de th at a co nv ic ti on un de r se ct io n 79 0.1 5( 2) do es no t qu al ify

as a cri m e o f vi ol en ce.

Bu t we ha ve ne ve r eq ua te d “ pu rp os efu l, vi ol en t, a n d ag gr es si ve ” wit h a

sp eci fic in t e n t t o ha rm

. In st ead

, we su gg es te d in Har ri so n th at a pu rp os efu l act

de m on st rat in g a “ cal lo us ne ss an d i nd iff eren ce t o t he li ve s of oth ers sm ack [s ]

. . . of

th e ki nd of pe rs on th at m ig ht ‘del ib erat el y p o i n t t he gu n an d pu ll th e tri gg er’” an d

wou ld b e s i mi l ar in ki nd to th e en um erat ed of fen se s. 55 8 F.3 d at 12 95 (q uo ti ng

Beg ay , 55 3 U.S. at

__ , 12 8 S. Ct

. at 15 87 ) (s ug ge st in g t h a t a s t a t u te pr os cri bi ng

fle ei ng th e po li ce “ reck le ss ly wit ho ut reg ard fo r th e sa fet y of ot he rs ” wou ld qu al ify

18a s a v i o l e n t fel on y un de r th e ACCA). And

, in Har ri s we he ld th at a cri m e was

“ pu r p o s e f ul

, vi ol en t, an d ag gr es si ve ” whe re th e of fen se “ ev in ce[d ], by th e ve ry

la ng ua ge of th e st at ut e, a pa lp ab le ris k of se rio us in jury to pe rs on s or pr op ert y , if no t

d e a t h

. ” 58 6 F.3 d at 12 88

. In Har ri s , we ex pl ai ne d th at wil lfu ll y fle ei ng fro m th e

po li ce at hi gh sp eed or wit h a wan to n di sr eg ard fo r t h e s afet y of ot he rs was

“ un de ni ab ly pu rp os efu l,” it was “ vi ol en t” be caus e th e of fen de r “ po se s a po werfu l ris k

to th e arre st in g of

fic er, pe de st ria ns , a nd ot he r dr iv ers an d p as se ng ers in th ei r car s,”

an d “ ag gr es si ve ” be cau se “ a dr iv er fle ei ng at su ch hi gh sp eed s is in de ed li ke ho ld in g

a weap on ou t, re ad y

to fir e.” Id

.

Kno win gl y an d wil lfu ll y di sc ha rg in g a fir earm fro m a v e h i cl e is

, wit ho ut

qu es ti on , “ pu rp os efu l” co nd uc t. Unl ik e th e DUI at is su e in Beg ay , se ct io n 79 0.1 5( 2)

is no t a st ric t li ab il it y pr ov is io n. The Beg ay Co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at “ a dr un k dr iv er m ay

ve ry w e l l d r in k on pu rp os e. Bu t

. . . un li ke th e ex am pl e cri m es , th e co nd uc t fo r

whi ch th e dr un k dr iv e r i s c o n v i ct ed (d riv in g un de r th e in flu en ce) ne ed no t be

pu rp os efu l or de li be rat e.” 55 3 U.S. at

__ , 12 8 S. Ct

. at 15 87

. In co nt ras t, th e co nd uc t

fo r whi ch a pe rs on is co nv ic te d un de r se ct io n 79 0.1 5( 2) is th e pu rp os efu l fir in g of a

weap on fro m a ve hi cl e. The a dd it io na l el em en t t ha t an ot he r pe rs on m us t b e wit hi n

1,0 00 feet li m it s th e ci rcu m st an ces un de r whi ch th is pu rp os efu l act vi ol at es th e

19st at ut e. It d oe s n ot , ho wev er, t ran sf or m th is pr ov is io n from a pu rp os efu l crim e to a

cri m e o f st ric t l ia bi li ty.

Not on ly is it pu rp os efu l, bu t a vi ol at io n of se ct io n 79 0.1 5( 2) a l so typic al ly

in vo lv es “ vi ol en t” an d “ ag gr es si ve ” co nd uc t. Ofte n, th e co ns eq ue nc e of di sc ha rg in g

a fir earm is th e de at h or in jury of a pe rs on or an im al

, or th e de st ru ct io n of pr op ert y

.

Mo re o fte n t ha n n ot , it is a vi ol en t and ag gr es si ve act

. The re are, of co ur se , la wfu l,

no n- vi ol en t, an d no n- ag gr es si ve m ean s to di sc ha rg e a fir earm , su ch as recr eat io na l

sh oo ti ng at a de si gn at ed ran ge

. And

, we su sp ect th at th ere are ev en so m e un la wfu l,

y et no n- vi ol en t an d no n- ag gr es si ve m ean s to di sc ha rg e a fi r e a r m. Bu t, it wou ld be

an ex cep ti on al cas e fo r on e to fir e fro m a ve hi cl e wit hi n 1,0 00 feet of an ot he r pe rs on

wit ho ut vi ol en ce an d ag gr es si on

. Und er th es e ci rcu m st an ces , th e sh oo te r kn ows or

sh ou ld kn ow of th e po te nt ia l ris k of in ju r y h e o r sh e crea te s by fir in g th e weap on

.

The sh o o t e r k n owi ng ly, or reck le ss ly wit ho ut reg ard fo r th e sa fet y of ot he rs , pu ts

dr iv ers of ot he r ve hi cl es , th ei r pa ss en ge rs , pe de st ria ns , an d in ha bi ta nt s of ne arb y

bu il di ng s at ris k of se rio us in jury o r de at h. Lik e th e bu rg la r who bre ak s an d e nt ers

a ho m e in di sr eg ard of th e ris k of vi ol en t co nf ro nt at io n, or th e ars on is t who se ts fir e

to a st ru ct ur e in di sr eg a r d of th e un de ni ab le ris k to it s oc cu pa nt s, a pe rs on who

di sc ha rg es a fir earm fro m a ve hi cl e pe rfo rm s a de li be rat e act th at po se s an ob vi ou s

20ris k of in

jury or de a t h t o i n n o cen t th ird pa rti es

. Thi s is

, we be li ev e, “ vi ol en t” an d

“ ag gr es si ve ” co nd uc t.

W e ack no wled ge th at se ct io n 79 0.1 5( 2) co ul d te ch ni cal ly be vi ol at ed in a cas e

w h e r e th e sh oo te r do es no t kn owi ng ly or reck le ss ly pu t ot he rs at ris k of in jury or

de at h— fo r ex am

pl e, th e fir in g of a weap on in to th e ai r fro m a ve hi cl e in a se cl ud ed

area

. B u t

, Be g a

y in st ru ct s us to ex am in e whe th er th e cri m e in qu es ti on ty pi ca ll y

in vo lv es pu rp o s e f

u l

, v io le nt , a nd ag gr es si ve co nd uc t. 55 3 U.S. a t

__ , 1 28 S. Ct . a t

15 86 ; se e al

so Uni te d St at es v. Zu ni

ga , 55 3 F.3 d 13 30

, 13 34 -3 5 (1 0t h C i r

. 20 09 )

(h ol di ng th at po ss es si ng a de ad ly weap on in a pe na l in st it ut io n is pu rp os efu l be cau se ,

al th ou gh it can be co m

m it te d reck le ss ly, it is typic al ly co m m it te d in te nt io na ll y ). W e

are wit ho ut th e be ne fit of em pi ric al da ta to ve rif

y th at th e co m

m is si on of th is of

fen se

typic al ly i nv ol ve s vi ol en t an d ag gr es si v e c o n d u ct

. Bu t, ou r co nc lu si on th at it do es

is su pp or te d by a rev ie w of th e fact s of Fl or id a cas es di sc us si ng se ct io n 79 0.1 5( 2) an d

th e in fere nc es we dr aw fro m th e way Fl or id a la w cl as si fie s th is of fen se

. The fact s of

ev ery rep or te d cas e di sc us si ng se ct io n 79 0.1 5( 2) of whi ch we are a w a r e rel at e

co nd uc t th at is

, un de ni ab ly, vi ol en t a n d ag gr es si ve

. Val de s , 3 So

. 3d at 10 68

(in te nt io na l di sc ha rg e of a fir earm in to an oc cu pi ed ve hi cl e); Lo pe z- Vaz qu ez v. St at e ,

93 1 So

. 2d 23 1, 23 5 (Fl a. 5t h DCA 20 06 ) (s am e); L u c i a no v. St at e , 12 So

. 3d 91 7,

91 8 ( F l a . 5 th DCA 20 09 ) (s am e); La mb v. St at e , 6 68 So .2d 66 6, 66 6 (Fl a. 2d DCA

2119 96 ) (d is ch arg in g a fir earm fro m a ve hi cl e at a po li ce of fic er); Hal l v. St at e , 66 1 So

.

2d 6 3

, 6 3 ( F l a

. 2d DCA 19 95 ) (g ui lt y pl ea to at te m pt ed m ur de r an d di sc ha rg in g a

fir earm fro m a ve hi cl e). And

, as we ex pl ai ne d ab ov e, Fl or id a la w c l a s s ifi es a

vi ol at io n of se ct io n 79 0.1 5( 2) as a cl as s- two fel on y , whe reas it cl as si fie s di sc ha rg in g

a fir earm in pu bl ic as a m is de m ean or

. Thi s di st in ct io n s u gg es ts th at th is pr ov is io n

ta rg et s vi ol en t an d ag gr es si ve co nd uc t, no t th e m ere care le ss us e of a fir earm

. W hi le

we do no t ba se ou r co nc lu si on s so le ly on th e cl as s i fic at io n of th is of fen se an d th e

fact s of Fl or id a cas es di sc us si ng it

, w e n ot e th at th ey su pp or t ou r in fere nc e th at a

vi ol at io n of 79 0.1 5( 2) ty

pi ca ll y in vo lv es vi ol en t, pu rp os efu l, an d ag gr es si ve co nd uc t,

th e ki nd whi ch “ m ak es m or e li ke ly th at an of fen de r, la te r po ss es si ng a gu n, wil l us e

th at gu n d el ib erat el y

to ha rm a vi ct im .” Beg ay , 55 3 U.S. at

__ , 12 8 S . Ct. at 15 86

.

In Har ri s , we eq ua te d “ [f]leei ng at hi gh sp eed or w i th wan to n di sr eg ard fo r

sa fet y ” to “ ho ld in g a fin ge r on th e tri gg er of a de ad ly weap on , wit ho ut care fo r who m

th e bu ll et m ay st rik e,” 58 6 F.3 d a t 1 2 8 9

— p r e c is el y th e co nd uc t th at is ta rg et ed by

Fl a. St at

. § 79 0.1 5( 2)

. Lik e we di d in Har ri s , we co nc lu de th a t

, as th is cri m e is

typic al ly co m

m it te d, it pr es en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ris k of ph y si cal in jury to an ot he r

an d is si m il ar in ki nd to bu rg la ry , ars on , ex to rti on , an d cri m es in vo lv in g th e us e of

ex pl os iv es , th e cri m es en um erat ed in U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .2.

22W e ho ld th at fo r pu rp os es of U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(a )(4 )(A), a co ur t sh ou ld fact or

a p rio r co nv ic ti on un de r Fl a. St at . § 7 90 .15 (2 ) as a cri m e o f vi ol en ce.

B. Cr ed it fo r Ti me Se rv ed

in St at e Cu st od

y

Alex an de r al so arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by de cl in in g to award cred it

ag ai ns t hi s sen te nc e fo r ti m e se rv ed in st at e cu st od y . 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 5( b) pro vi de s,

“ [a] de fen da nt sh al l be gi ve n cred it to ward th e se rv ic e of a te rm of im pr is on m en t fo r

an y ti m e he ha s sp en t in of fic ia l de te nt io n pr io r to th e da te th e se nt en ce co m m en ces

. . . .” A u t h o r i t y to cal cu la te cred it fo r ti m e se rv ed un de r se ct io n 35 85 (b ) is ve st ed

in th e Att or ne y Gen eral

, no t th e se nt en ci ng co ur t. Uni te d St at es v. W il so n , 50 3 U.S.

32 9, 33 4, 11 2 S. Ct

. 13 51

, 13 54 (1 99 2)

. And

, pr is on ers m ay se ek jud ic ia l rev ie w of

th e cal cu la ti on on ly aft er ex ha us ti ng ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s. Uni te d St at es v. Lu ca s ,

89 8 F .2d 15 54 , 15 55 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ).

At th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , Alex an de r req ue st ed th at th e co ur t mo d i f y hi s

se nt en ce to ta ke in to acco un t th e fact th at th e Bu reau of Pri so ns wou ld no t gi ve hi m

c r e d i t fo r th e ti m e he se rv ed in st at e cu st od y

. (R.2 -4 0 at 15 .) On ap pe al

, he rech arac te riz es th is as a req ue st fo r cred it ag ai ns t hi s se nt en ce pu rs ua nt to 18 U.S.C. §

35 85 (b ). W e ne ed no t be de ta in ed by co nc ern s as to whe th er th is is su e was pr es erv ed

fo r rev ie w, ho wev er, be cau se Alex an de r ha s no t ex ha us te d hi s ad m in is tra ti ve

rem ed ie s, an d th us th e di st ric t co ur t la ck ed au th or it y to award cred it fo r ti m e se rv ed

.

23V. Concl us io n

Fo r th e reas on s st at ed ab ov e, we AFFIR M Alex an de r’s se nt en ce of fo rty th reem on th s im

pr is on m en t t o b e f

o l lo wed by th ree y ears su pe rv is ed rel eas e fo r be in g a

fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g ).

AFFIR MED.

24