## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 1695 C ARNEL L B R OWN , Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v . R I CA RDO R I OS, W ar den, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 1:10- cv-01374- MM M

—Mi ch ael M . M ihm, Judge
.
A RG UE D J UL Y 11, 2012

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 20, 2012

Befo re P OSNER, M A NI ON, an d T INDER , Circ uit Ju dg es . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Th e p rin c ip al a lth ou gh n oton ly i ssue prese nted by thi s a pp eali s the o ften v exi ng questi on o fw h ethera convi cti on use d to enhance a defendant’s se ntence und erthe A rm ed Care erCri m i nal A c t is a “v i ol ent fel ony” withi n the m eani ng o fthe A ct. 18 U .S
. C. § 9 24( e)
. The A ct defi nes the te rm to m ean ei thera fel ony that “has as an el em en t the use, at tem pted use, o r thre ate ned use ofp hysi calfor ce a gainst the per son2 N o. 11

- 1695 ofano ther ” o r “i s bur gl ar y, ar son, o r extor ti on, i nv olv es u se of ex p los ive s, or otherw is e involves conduct that pre se nts a seriou s po tentia l risk o f ph ysic a l inju ry to an o ther .” §§ 924( e) ( 2) ( B)( i ) , ( i i )
. I t i s the cat chal l phrase , wh i ch we ha ve i ta l i ci ze d, tha t pr es en ts pr o bl ems o fa ppl i ca ti o n. Car ne l l Br o wn wa s c o nv i c t e d i n 2 0 0 0 o f b e i ng a f el on i n posse ssi on o f a g u n , § 922( g) ( 1) , an o ffense f orwh i ch th e m ax i m um s en te nc e i s no r m al l y 1 0 y ea r s i n pri so n. § 9 24( a) ( 2)
. The go ver nm ent ur ge d thathe b e s entence d to a mi ni mum o f 1 5 y e a r s o n the g r o un d tha the ha d th ree p revious c o n v ic tions for a viol en t fel ony or a fel o ny dr ugo ffen se, and i fthi s was r i g htthe n the A rm ed Caree r Cri m i nalA ct ind eed r equi re d a se ntence at l eas t that l ong. § 924(e)(1). W e hel d that i t was r i ght, Uni t e d S t at e s v . Brown , 2 73 F.3 d 747( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1) , a nd on rem an d B ro w n w as se n te n c ed to 26 4 m on th s in p ris on , an d d id n otap p ea l. I n 201 0, f ol l owing an unsuccess ful col l ate ra l at tacko n his sen ten ce u nd er 2 8 U
. S. C
. § 2255 (the fed eral prisoner’s su b st itu te for h ab ea s c or p u s), h e m ou n te d a n ew co ll ate ra l at tack u nd erthe federa l habea s co rpus st atute , 28 U .S.C . § 22 41 , in relia n c e o nth e Su p re m e C o u rt ’s d ec isi o n in B ega y v . U nited Sta tes , 553 U
. S. 1 3 7 ( 2008 ). Th ere the Court had he l d that dri vi ng und er th e infl uence i s not w i thi n the catcha l l pro vi si on o fthe A rm ed C ar ee r C rim in al A c t b ec au se a c rim e w ith inth e c at c h all “ty pica l l y invol ve[ s ] p urpose ful, ‘ vi ol ent’ , and ‘ agg re ssi ve’ conduct. ” Id

. at14 4- 45. The di str i ct c ourtin thi s ca se, seco nd ed by the gov er nm ent, hel d that sect i on 2241 w as a pr o perv eh i cl e f o r Br o wn’ s at ta cko n h i s sente nc e, b utN o. 11

- 1695 3

w ent o n to hol d that he in d ee d had bee n convi cted o f thre e v i ol ent fel oni es orse ri ous dr ug o ffenses , and so hi s s e nt e nc e s t o o d, a nd h e h a s a pp e a l e d. The g o ve r nm en t ha s c oncede d tha t Br o wn ca n us e th e h ab ea s c or p u s s ta tu te to ch alle n ge th e le ga lity of h is sente nce. N or m al l y a federa l pri sone r i s con fi ned to hi s r em edy under 2 8 U.S
. C. § 2 255, but h e m ay peti ti on un de r s e c t i o n 2 2 4 1 i ns t e a d i fh i s s e c t i o n 2 2 5 5 r e med y is “ in ad eq u at e o r in effe c tiv e t o t es t t h e l e g a l ity of h is d et en tio n .” § 2 25 5(e ). In re D a ven po rt, 14 7 F
. 3d 605, 61 0- 12 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) , s e tf o r th thr e e c o nd i t i o ns f o r thi s e xc e pti on t o apply. Tw o cl ear l y a re sa ti sfied i n thi s ca se. Fir st , Bega ywas not a co nsti tuti onalcas e, but a s tatutor yi n t e r p re ta tio n ca se , so B ro w n co u ld n oth av e in vo ke d it bymean s o fa s ec o nd o r s ucc es si ve s ec ti o n 2 25 5 m o ti o n. 28 U .S.C . § 22 55 (h )(2) ; U nite d State s v. W yatt, 67 2 F
. 3d 519, 52 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12)
. S eco nd , al though he coul d not have i nvoke d i t in hi s fi rs t s ecti on 22 55 m oti on ei ther, be c ause Bega yhad n’t bee n d ecid ed , com p are In reD avenp o rt, sup ra , 147F.3d at60 9, Bega yis ap p lica b le re tr oa c tiv ely , id . at 6 10 ; Welch v. U nited Sta tes , 60 4 F
. 3d 40 8, 41 5 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ), an d th er efo re h e c ou ld inv ok e it b y a lat er m ot ion, pr ov id ed (b ec au se of th e b ar in sect i on 2 255( h)( 2) to se cond orsu cces si ve sect i on 2 255 m oti ons) t h at the l ate r m oti on wasn’ta sect i on 2 255 m o ti o n. I t was n’ t; i t was a s ec ti o n 2 24 1 m o ti o n. The thi rd condi ti on i s that Brown ’ s sente nce enhancem ent u n d erthe A rm ed Caree r Cri m i nalA ct, bec ause base d on a convi cti on f ora cri m e of wh i ch he was i nnocent , have be en a gr ave enough e rr orto be deem ed4 N o. 11

- 1695

a m i scar ri age o fj usti ce c or ri gibl e there f or e i n a hab eas c or p u s p ro c e e d in g. Na rva ez v . U nited Sta tes , 674 F
. 3d 621, 62 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) , hel d that s uch an er ro r “w as i nd eed a m i scar ri age o fj usti ce, ” e ven th ou gh i n that case i t was a vio l ati on m er el y o fthe car eer - offender se nt encingg ui del i ne s, r athe r tha n a s ta tu to r y v i o l at i o n. Na rva ez was a c ase i n w hi ch the gui delin es had been m an d atory w he n t h e d efend an t w as sen ten ced ; w e left o peni n U nite d State s v. W yatt, sup ra , 672 F. 3d at 52 3-24, w hetherthe re sul t m i ght b e di ffer ent no w thatthey ar e m er ely a dvi so r y . W e ne ed n’t tr y t o r es o l ve the i ssue i n thi s ca se. D a v e np o rt, unl i ke Na rva ez , h a d b e e n a c a s e i n whi ch a defendant ( N i chol s, Davenport ’ s co defe nd ant) had be eni nno ce nto fthe c r i m e o fwhi chhe ha d b ee n c o nvicted ( us e of a fi rearm i n con ne ction w ith a d rug offense) , w here as the prese nt case , l i ke Na rva ez , i nvol ves a s entencing er ro r. A num ber of case s, befor e a nd after and contr ar y t o Na rva ez , speci fy “ ac tu ali nnocence” o f the c ri m e o fwh i ch the defe n d ant was co nvi cted as o ne o f th e co ndi ti o ns f o r a l l o wi nga cha l l en g e unde r the h ab ea s c o rp u s s ta tu te . See , e.g., U nthank v. Jet t, 54 9 F
. 3d 53 4, 53 6 (7th C ir. 20 08 ); In re B rad fo rd, 66 0 F
. 3d 226, 23 0 (5t h C ir. 20 11 ) (p er cu ria m ); Kin de rv. Pur dy, 222 F. 3d 20 9, 21 3-14 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 0) ( perc ur i am)
. W e di dn’ t us e th e te r m i n D a ven po rt, al though i t was, as we sa i d, an “a ctual i nnocence” cas e. Bu t these case s i nvol ved , l i ke Na rva ez , vi ol ati ons of the s entencing guidel i nes r atherthan ofthe A rm ed Caree r Cri m i nalA ct. A se ntence that vi ol ate s a sta tute, asN o. 11

- 1695 5 dist i nct fro m a sente nce per m i tte d by a st atute tho ugh m or e s eve re than author i zed bythe gui del i nes, co u ld w el l be thoug h t an er ro r gr ave enough t o w ar ra nt r el i ef i n a habe as c o r p us pr o ce eding

— a “ fund am entaler ro r equ iva lent to actuali nnocence, ” Ta ylo r v. G ilk ey, 31 4 F
. 3 d 8 3 2 , 8 3 6 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 002)

— wher ea s no w tha t th e gui del i nes a re m er el y a dvis or y, a sen tenci ng j ud ge, w hi l e s ti l l r equi re d to cal culat e th e guidel i nes s entence , is fr e e t o g ive a heav ier (or for th at m atter a li gh ter) sente nce. Butwe ne edn ’t pur su e th e i ss ue whethe r o r whats en tenci ng er ro rs c an be cor re cted in a hab eas co rpus pro ceed ing furth er i n th is case, in view of th e go v e r n m e n t’s co nc es si o n. A nd so we com e t o the m er i ts, wh er e th e pri nci pal i ssue i s whether the fel ony ofw h ich Bro w n w as convi cted in an I l l i noi s co urt i n 198 3

— n a m e l y “ c o mp el[lin g] a perso n to bec om e a pro sti tute, ” I l l

. Rev. S tat
. 1983 , ch. 38 , § 11-16 (a)( 1)

— is a vio len t fe lon y w ith in th e m ea ni ngo fthe Armed Ca r ee r Cr i m i na l A ct. Our 2001 d ec i si o n in the di r ec t appe alfr o m Br o wn’ s se nte nc e des cr ibe s th e o ffense as “a s i tu at i o n whe r e o ne perso n, f orm oney, co m pel s a nothe r to subm i t t o no nc o ns en su als ex w ith a thi r d pe r so n. Tha t si tu at i o n, unl ike m an y c as es o fs ta tu to r yr ape . . . , ne ce ss ar i l y i nv o l v e s u ncons e nt e d- t o a c t i v i t y tha ti s , b y i t s e l f, a ty pe ofphysi cali nj ury. ” 2 73 F. 3d at 751. In other w or ds, payin g a per son to engag e in sex i s a n i nj ury to that p er s o n . Th is for m u la c an n otbe sq u ar ed w ith th e d efin iti on o fa violen t fel ony i n the Bega ycas e, deci ded after our fi rs t Br own de ci si o n.6 N o. 11

- 1695 Later( that i s, afterthe Bega y d e c i s i o n ) , i t i s t r u e , t he Court, co m m enti ng o n dri vi ng under the i nfl uence

— th e cr i m e he l d i n Begay n ot to b e a vi o l en t fel o ny

— sai d that a cr i m e “ akin to st ri ct l i abi l i ty, negl i gence , and r eckl ess n es s c rim es ” is n ota vio len t fe lon y. Sy k es v. U nited Sta tes , 13 1 S . C t. 22 67, 22 76 ( 2011 )
. But thi s ca n’tbe re ad t o me a n tha te v e r y i nt e nt i o na l c r i m e is a v i o l en t fel o ny ( tax e vasi on? pr i ce fi xi ng?) ; thatwould m ake no sense , an d the C our t i m m edi at ely a dded th ata v i o l en t fel o ny i n the catcha l l cat ego ryi s o ne thati s “ si m i l ari n ri sk to the l i ste d cri m es, ” id

. , w hich m ean s crim es su ch a s bu rgl ar y a nd arso n. N ordoes Sy k es b ac ka way fr o m the Cou r t’ s ho l di ngi n C ha m bers v. U nited Sta tes , 555 U .S. 122 ( 2 0 0 9 ) , tha tf a i l i ngt o r e po r tt o p r i s o n whe n o r de r e d, though i t i s a n i ntenti onalfel ony, i s not a vi ol ent o ne, because the r i s ko fv i o l e nc e i n e ff o r t s t o a pp r e he nd s uch no- shows has no t be en sho w n to be si gni fi cant. N ei th erha s i t be ens ho wn th atc o m pel l i nga pe r so n, w i thin the mea ning o f the I l l i no i s s t a t ut e , t o b e c o m e a p ro st i tu te ne ce ss ar i l y cr ea te s a r i sk o f vi o l en ce to he r. There w oul d be a r i sk

— m or e than a ri sk, an a ctual i ty

— of vi o l en ce i fthe c o m pul si o n r equi r ed to c o nv i cto fthe cri m e were ph ys ica l co er ci on, as i n ourr ecentcas e o f U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cephu s , 6 84 F.3d 703 (7th C ir. 2012), w he re defe nd ants had beate n and w hi pp ed w om en t o f or ce them to enga ge i n i nter sta te pros ti tuti on in vi ol ati on of federa l l aw . But as f aras we have b een abl e t o l ea r n, a l l tha t th e I l l i no i s fel o ny o fc o m pel l i ngpr o st i tu
ti on re quir es be shown , and a l l that the typi c al case i nvol ves, i s ind uci ng w om en ( perhaps m en al so) to engag e in pros ti tuti on bypro m i si ng the m m oneyo rN o. 11

- 1695 7 othe r thi ngs o fvalue, suc h as m i nd

- al ter i ng drugs , f ordoi ng so . A s o f19 61, I l l i noi s d efi ned as “pand er i ng” the condu ct o f anyo ne wh o “f orm on ey” ei ther“co m pel s a fem al e t o be c o me a p r o s t i t ut e ” o r “ a r r a ng e s o r o ffe r s t o a r r ange a s i tuati on in w hi ch a fem al e m ay pract i ce pr ost i tuti on .” Th e fi r s to ffe ns e , “ pa nd e r i ng by c o mpul s i o n, ” c a r r i e d a sente nce o f1 to 10 yea rs ; the seco nd , “pandering other th an by com p ulsion” (th at is, “p an d ering by arran ging”), a s e n t e n c e o n ly of 0 to 5 ye ar s. 72 0 IL C S 1 1-1 6(1 )(b ). In 1977the sta tute w as am ended, and i t w as t h at am ended ver si on u n d erwh i ch Brown w as convi cted. ( The sta tute now appears , with a n i rr el evant fu rther am endm ent, at 720 I LC S 5/ 11- 14. 3. ) The o nl y m ate ri alchange betw een th e 1 9 6 1 a n d 1 9 7 7v e r s i o n s wa s th e p u n i s h me n t
. No l onge r w as c om p u l si on punis hed m or e hea vi l y than ar ra ngi ng. Both were now to be pu ni shed as Clas s 4 fel oni es, wh i ch pres cribe a sen tencing ra nge o f1 to 3 yea r s. I l l

. Re v. S ta t. 1 97 3, c h. 3 8, § 1 00 5- 8- 1(b) ( 5)
. Thus the puni sh m en t f o r c o m pul si on w as r edu ce d t o the pu ni shm ent forar ra ngi ng. The f act that i t pr obably i s e asi erto pro ve ar ra ngem en t th anc o m pul sio n may e xpl ain why we ca n’ t fi nd anycas es othe r th an Bro w n’s i n w hi ch anyo ne has been convi cted o fco m pu l si on s i nce the 19 77 am endm ent. Even m or e s urpri si ng, w e can’tfi nd any ear l i ersuch convi cti ons ei ther

. A l l we have i s a tin y sh ar d ofl egi sl ative history

— a 1 961 com m ent b y a Jo i nt Com m i tte e th a th a d b e e n f o r me d b y th e G o v e r n o r a n d S u p r e me Cou r t o fI l l i no i s i n c o nj unc ti o n w i ththe I l l i no i s an d8 N o. 11

- 1695 Ch i c a g o Ba r As s o c i a t i o ns t o dr a fta n e w c r i mi na l c o de for Il lin o i s. T h e c om m en t s ta te s t h at th e c rim e o f co m p ell i ng pro sti tuti on “ d eals with the use ofso m e k i nd o f coe rc ion t o pla ce the wom an i n the tr ade orto ke ep her ther e, ” but that “thi s descr i pti on a ccor ds m or e with the hi sto ri calvi ew o fpanderi ng ,” and that “ w hi l e a t the tu rn o fthe centur y the co er ci on wh en em plo yed probabl y a ro se fro m fi nanci aldestitu tio n, to day co er ci on p ro b ab ly a ris es m or e fre q u en tly from d ru g a d d ict i o n .” 720 I LC S 5/ 11- 16, Com m itte e Com m ents

— 1961 , at46 6 (Sm i th- H urd 200 2)
. The i m pli cati on i s that the “co m pu lsion” is ofthe “h ere’s an offer you can ’t resi st” ch aract er. I nde ed th atmay be the o nl y c o m pul si o n tha t th e st atut e r ea ch es , b ec au se o fthe s ta tu te ’ s l i m i te d s en te n c in g ra n ge . I f a p an d er er u se s p h ys ica l co er c ion, a s in the Cep hus c a s e , he i s c o mmi t t i n ga mo r e s e r i o u s c r i me tha n o ne pu ni s hab l e b y a max i mum s e nt e nc e o fthr ee y ear s i n pr i s o n, a nd wi l ldo ub t l e s s b e c ha r g e d a c c o r di ng ly. Thi s m ayb e an o th err ea so n why we ca n’ t fi nd pr o se cut i o ns f o r c o m pel l i ngpr o st i tu ti o n o th ertha n the pr o se cut i o n o fBr o wn. M a yb e , a s the g o v e r nme nt hint s , the v i o l e nc e t o w hi ch such panderi ng g i ves ri se i s no t bythe pan d er er butb ythe pr o st i tu te’s cus to m er, a s we no te d i n U nited St at e s v. P a t t e rs on , 576 F.3d 431 , 441-42 (7th C ir. 2009), a case th at involved tran sp orting a m inor in in terst at e c om m er c e w ith th e in te n t t h at sh e e n ga ge in p ro st itu ti o n. S ucht r an spo r ta tion en dan g er s th e m i no r, b ut w ou ld en d an ge r an a d u lt p ro st itu te a s w ell, g ive n th e w elldocum ented fre quency of ass aul ts aga i nst pr ost i tutesN o. 11

- 1695 9 by thei r custo m er s. E. g. , Kaethe M or ri s Hoffer, “A Response to Se x Traffi cki ng Ch i cago Styl e: Fo l l ow the S i ste rs , SpeakOut, ” 1 58 U
. P a . L. R ev . 1 8 3 1 , 1 8 3 8

- 3 9 ( 2 0 1 0 ) ; J o dy Ra pha ela nd J es si ca Ashl ey, “ Domes ti c S ex Tr affi ck i ng ofChica go W om en and Gir l s” ( I l l

. Cri m . J usti ce I n form ati on Au thor i ty, M ay 2008 ) , ww w . end d em andil l i noi s. or g/ s i t e s / de f a ul t/ fi l e s / I CJ I A_ Re s e a r c h_J o dy

. pd f; S t e v e n D. Levi tt et al

. , “An Em pir i cal A n alys i s o fS tr eet
- Level Pro sti tuti on” 3, 14 ( Se pt. 20 07) , http: //eco nom i cs. uchica go. e d u /p d f/ P r o s t i t u t i o n %2 0 5
. p d f ? q = v e n k a t e s h ; Do n n a M. Hughe s , “ Be s tP r a c t i c e s t o Add r e s s the De man d S i de of Traffi cking” 10-12 (W om en ’s Stu d ies Progra m , U niversit y of R h od e Isla n d , A u gu st 20 04 ), w w w .u ri.ed u /a rt sc i/ wm s /h u g h e s / d e ma n d

_ s e x

_ t r a ffi c k i n g . p d f; D a v i d G. S o mm er, “Rece nt Deci si ons, ” 6 0 M d . L. R ev . 994, 1011 ( 2001 ); Evel i na Giobbe et al., “I m press i ons ofa Publi c Pol i cy I ni ti ati ve, ” 1 6 Ham li ne J. P ub. Law & Po li cy1, 13 n. 69 ( 1994 ); but se e Ronal d W ei tze r, “S ex Tra ffi cking and the Se x I ndus try : The Nee d for Ev i den ce Ba se d The o r y a nd Legi sl ati on, ” 1 01 J
. Cr i m . L. & Cr i m i nol ogy13 37, 1362- 63 ( 20 11 )
. ( The W eb s i te s wer e vi si te d o n Augus t 5, 2 01 2. ) But i f th e po ss ibi l i ty o f su ch an as sa ul t m ak es com pel l i ng pr o st i t u t i o n a v i o l e n tfe l o n y, i tl i k e wi s e ma k e s a r r a n g i ng pros ti tuti on a vi ol ent fel ony, wh i ch no one i s a rguing
. F ur th er m o r e, i f co m pel l i ng pr o st i tu ti o n ty pi ca l l y i nvol ved the use o r thre at ofvi ol ence , it w oul d be pu ni shabl e bya heavi erse ntence, an d i t i s no t. A l l that c om p u lsio n u n d er th e Illino is s ta tu te m ay m ea n is payi ng a p er son to beco m e a pro sti tute, wh er eas arrang i ng co uld m ean m anaging a bro theli n w hi ch th e pr o st i tu te s ar e pai d b y the j o hns r ather th an b y the10 N o. 11

- 1695

m anage r, wh o m er el y t ake s a cut ofthei r earni ngs, so that th ere is no elem en t of fi na nc iali nd uc em en t. T his in t erpr et at i o n i s fur th ers uppo r ted b y c o m par i so n o fthe max i mum s e nt ence f orco m pu l si on

— th ree years

— w i ththe m axi m um se ntences th at I l l i noi s l aw decr ees f orwh at ar e cl earl y “ vi o l en t fel o ni es ” wi th i n the mean i ngo fthe Arm ed Car ee r Cr i m i na l Act
. F o r r esi den ti alb ur g l ar y the m axi m um i s 1 5 y ear s, f orr esi dential a rs on a l so 15 yea rs , for in tim id at ion (Ill in ois ’s c ou n te rp ar t t o e x to rt ion in f e d e ra l law , U ni t e d S t at e s v. U nthank, 1 0 9 F
. 3 d 1 2 0 5 , 1 210 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) , a l i ste d offense i n the A rm ed Caree r Cri m i nalA ct) 10 year s, and forposs ess i on o fexpl osi ves 30 yea rs . 72 0 I LC S 5/ 19- 3, 5/20- 1. 2, 5/12

- 6, 5/20

- 2; 730 I LC S 5/5- 45- 30, 40 . W e co ncl ud e that co m pel l i ng a perso n to be c o me a p r o s t i t u t e h a s n o tb e e n s h o wnt o b e a v i o l en t fe l o n y w i th i n th e me a n i n go fth e A r me d C a r e e r C r i mi nalA ct. There i s, how eve r, a seco nd m er i ts i ssue: wh ethera 1993 c on vic tio n of B ro w n for “ ar m ed vio len c e” u n d er Il lin ois l aw , defi ned as “ com m i tting anyfel ony d efin ed by I l l i n o i s l a w w h i l e a r me d , ” I l l

. R e v . S t a t
. 1 9 7 8 , c h

. 3 8 , § 3 3 A2

— the fel ony w as posse ssi on o fi l l ega l drugs

— w as a vio len t fel ony w i thi n the m eani ng o fthe federa l A ct because o fthe fre qu ent l i nkage r em ar ked i n m any c ase s b et w ee n gu n s an d d ru gs . See , e.g., U nite d State s v. Fife, 62 4 F.3 d 44 1, 4 4 7

- 4 8 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cunni ngh am , 51 7 F .3d 17 5, 17 9 (3 d C ir. 20 08 ); U nited Sta tes v. C raw fo rd, 1 3 0 F
. 3 d 1 3 2 1 , 1 3 2 3 ( 8 th Ci r . 1 9 9 7 )
. I fs o , B r o wn ha s th r ee qua l i fy i ngc o nvict i o ns e ve n i fthe pa nde r i ng convi cti on, as we hol d, doesn’ t co unt.N o. 11

- 1695 11 W e would ag re e with the governm ent a nd the dist ri ct cour t that the fel ony that Brown had bee n convic ted o f com m i tting wh i l e arm ed w as a vi ol ent fel ony i fi t had i nvol ved the saleof d ru gs . U nite d State s v. Fife, sup ra , 6 24 F
. 3d a t 4 47

- 48
. Buti t ha d i nv o l ve d m er ely po ss es si o n. Ori gi nal l y, i t i s t rue, he ha d al so b ee n char ged with m anufa cturing and del i ver i ng the dru gs, but that charg e had been dro pp ed and the g ove rnm ent doe s no t re ly on i t; so , as f ar a s w e know

— an d as w e m us t the refore ass um e forpurposes o fdeci ding thi s a pp eal

— Brown was a co ns um ero fdr ug s w ho ha p p ene d t o o wn a g un. The mo r e th a n 2 2 mi l l i o n A me r i c a n s e s t i ma t e d t o c o n s u me i l l ega l drugs, see Subst ance A buse a nd M entalH eal th Se rv i ces A dm i ni str ati on, “Res ult s fro m the 2010 N ati onal Sur veyo n Drug Use and H eal th: S um m ar y o fN ati onal Fi nd i ngs” ( N SD U H S er i es H

- 41, H H S Publi cati on N o. ( S MA) 1 1

- 4 6 5 8 , 2 0 1 1 ) , ww w. o a s . s a mh s a . g o v / NS DU H/ 2k 10 N S DU H /2k 10 Re su l ts
. ht m ( vi si te d Aug. 5 , 2 012), a nd the 5 7mi l l i o n Am e r i c a ns e sti m a t e d t o o wn g un s , s e e L. H epburn et al

. , “The U.S

. Gun S toc k: Resul ts fro m the 2004 N ati onal Fi re ar m s Sur vey, ” 13 Inj ury Pr e ve nt i on 15 (2007), are overlap p ing sets. A nd w hile there is ev iden ce of a c o n n e c t i o n b e t we e n “ C o n g r e s s ’ s a t t e mp tt o k e e p fi r e a r ms awayfr o m habi tu aldr ugusers an d i ts g o alo fr edu cing vi ol ent c ri m e, ” U nited S t a t e s v. Ya nc ey, 62 1 F
. 3d 681, 68 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) , i t has not been shown that the m er e pos ses si on o fa gun by a d rug user(w ho m i ght no t be a habi tual us er, that i s, an ad d ict) can be d escribed as pu rpo se ful, v i o l en t, o r a g g r es si ve c o nduc t wi th i n the m ean ing of Bega y . Fo r th es e re as on s, w e re ve rs e t h e d ist ric t ju d g e ’s d ec isio n an d rem an d w ith instru ctions to redu ce B row n’s12 N o. 11

- 1695

sen ten ce to 10 years’ im p risonm en t. T his w il l requ ire hi s r e l e a s e , th o u g h th e d i s t r i c t j u d g e ma y wa n tt o c o nsi der r el eas in g him o n bai l i n or der t o prot ect the g over nm ent’ s r i ght t o see k r evi ew o fo ur deci si on by the S up re m e Cour t. R EV ER S ED AN D R EMAND ED .

8- 20- 12