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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 10 28

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 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.

Sh arro d E. Dace

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 Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 19 , 20 16 Fil ed : No ve m

be r 30 , 20 16 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, ARNOLD, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Sh arro d E. Dac e pl ead ed gu il ty t o a on e-co un t in di ct m en t ch arg in g hi m wit h be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of fir earm s in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) an d9 2 4 ( a ) (2 ). At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t di sc us se d Dace’s ob jecti on s to 1

cat eg o r i z a t io n of two of Dace’s pr io r co nv ic ti on s as cri m es of vi ol en ce: res is ti ng

arre st an d se co nd -d eg ree ro bb ery. The di st ric t co ur t su st ai ne d Dace’s ob jecti on wit h

res pe ct to th e res is ti ng arre st co nv ic ti on , bu t fo un d ov er Dace’s ob jecti on th at Dace’s

pr io r Mi ss ou ri co nv ic ti on fo r se co nd -d eg ree ro bb ery co ns ti tu te d a cri m e of vi ol en ce fo r pu rp os es of se nt en ci ng

. Dace ap pe al s. Tho ug h th e di st r ic t co ur t erre d in

co nc lu di ng th at Dace’s se co nd -d eg ree ro bb ery c o n v ic ti on qu al ifi es as a cri m e of vi ol en ce, we fi nd th at erro r to be ha rm le ss

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

On Ja nu ary 20
, 20 14
, In de pe nd en ce, Mi ss ou ri, po li ce of fic ers rece iv ed a rep or t of su sp ic io us act iv it y in a Koh l’s Dep art m en t St or e p ark in g lo t. Offi cers were to ld th at a bl ack Mo nt e Carl o ha d en te red th e pa rk in g lo t, an d a m al e pa ss en ge r ha d ex it ed th e car an d was cro uc hi ng be twee n pa rk ed cars

. W he n po li ce la te r at te m pt ed to st op th e Mo nt e Carl o, a hi gh -s pe ed ch as e en su ed

. The Mo nt e Carl o was ul ti m at el y fo un d ab an do ne d, b ut th e li cen se pl at e was tra ced to Dace.

Offi cers wen t to Dace’s ad dr es s, whe re Dace’s gi rlf rie nd co ns en te d to a se arch of th e ho us e. Dur in g th e se arch
, of fic ers di sc ov ered se v e n g u n s an d fo un d Dace hi di ng in a b a s e men t crawl sp ace. Dace pl ead ed gu il ty to a on e-co un t in di ct m en t ch arg in g hi m wit h be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of fir earm s. At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t

co ur t fo un d th at be cau se Dace’s pr io r co nv ic ti on fo r Mi ss ou ri se co nd -d eg ree ro bb ery in vi ol at io n of Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 56 9.0 30 co ns ti tu te d a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r USSG § 4B 1.2 (a)( 1)
, Dace was su bjec t to a se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t pu rs ua nt to § 2K2 .1(a )(4 ). App lying th e en ha nc e men t , D a ce’s Gui de li ne s ran ge was 46 –5 7

m on th s, bu t th e co ur t v ari ed up ward to im po se a se nt en ce o f 75 m on th s. The co ur t

The Hon or ab le Greg Kay s, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d Stat es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-ex pl ai ne d th at it wou ld ha ve im po se d th e sa m e se nt en ce ev en if it ha d co nc lu de d th at th e Mi ss ou ri se co nd -d eg ree ro bb ery co nv ic ti on di d no t co ns ti tu te a cri m e of vi ol en ce, hi gh li gh ti ng th e da ng ero us na tu re of th e cri m e an d wha t it co ns id ered to be Dace’s

pa rti cu la rly vio le nt cri m in al hi st or y

.

II . Dis cus si on

Dace arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de te rm in in g th at a co nv ic ti on un de r Mi ss ou ri’s se co n d

- d e g ree ro bb ery st at ut e is a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r USSG § 4B1 .2(a )(1 ) an d th eref

or e ap pl y in g a se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t fo r a pr io r cri m e of vi ol en ce co nv ic ti on un de r § 2K2 .1(a )(4 ). W hi le Dace’s ap p e a l w as pe nd in g, ou r

co ur t ad dr es se d th is ve ry is su e. Uni te d S t a te s v. Bel l, — F.3 d. —, 20 16 W L 63 11 08 4, at *1 –3 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (d is cu ss in g Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 55 9 U.S. 13 3,
14 0 (2 01 0) ). W e he ld th at a co nv ic ti on fo r se co nd -d eg ree ro bb ery in Mi ss ou ri do es

no t tri gg e r an en ha nc em en t un de r § 2K2 .1— whi ch in co rp or at es th e de fin it io n of

“ cri m e of vi ol en ce” art ic ul at ed in § 4B 1.2 —b ecau se it do es no t ha ve , as an el em en t of th e of fen se , th e us e of vi ol en t fo rce. Id

. at *3 (ad dr es si ng whe th er Mi ss ou ri

se co nd -d eg ree ro bb ery qu al ifi es as a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r on ly th e fo rce cl au se of § 4B 1.2 ). The refo re, th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de te rm in in g th at Dace’s se co nd -d eg ree

ro bb ery co nv ic ti on warrant ed a se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t fo r a pr io r cri m e of vi ol en ce.

“ A fai lu re to pro pe rly cal cu la te th e ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge is a si gn ifi can t
pr oc ed ur al erro r

. . . .” Uni te d St at es v. Sp ik es , 54 3 F.3 d 10 21
, 10 23 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ).
W he re, as he re, a de fen da nt pr es erv es a Gui de li ne s ch al le ng e, we rev ie w fo r ha rm le ss

erro r. Uni te d St at es v. M a r t in ez, 82 1 F.3 d 98 4, 98 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). “ [T]he
Gov ern m en t be ars th e bu rd en of pe rs u a s i on to de m on st rat e th at th e erro r was ha rm le ss , th at is
, th at th e erro r di d no t affe ct [Dace ’s] su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s.” Sp ik es , 54 3
F.3 d a t 1 02 5.

-3

-An in co rrec t Gui de li ne s cal cu la ti on “ ‘is ha rm le ss erro r whe re th e di st ric t co ur t

sp eci fie s th e res ol ut io n of a pa rti cu la r is su e di d no t affe ct th e ul ti m at e de te rm in at io n of a se nt en ce,’ su ch as whe n th e di st r i c t co ur t in di cat es it wou ld ha ve al te rn at iv el y im po se d th e sa m e se nt en ce ev en if a lo wer g ui de li ne ran ge ap pl ie d.” Mar ti ne z, 82 1
F.3 d a t 9 88 –8 9 (in te rn al ci ta ti on s om it te d) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Thi be au x, 7 84
F.3 d 12 21
, 12 27 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 )). W hi le in so m e cas es a co ur t se nt en ci ng a de fen da nt

un de r an in co rrec t Gui de li ne s ran ge m ay req ui re rem an d wit ho ut an y fu rth er sh owi ng of pr ejud ic e, whe n a d i st ric t co ur t’s de ta il ed ex pl an at io n fo r th e se nt en ce im po se d

m ak es “ cl ear th at th e jud ge ba se d th e se nt en ce he or sh e se le ct ed on fact or s in de pe nd en t of th e Gui de li ne s,” th e e r r o r m ay be ha rm le ss

. Uni te d St at es v. Mo li na -Ma rti ne z, 13 6 S. Ct . 13 38 , 13 46 –4 7 (2 01 6) ; s ee Unit ed St at es v. Icaza, 49 2
F.3 d 96 7, 97 0– 71 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (d is t r i c t co ur t’s ex pl an at io n m us t be su ffi ci en tl y de ta il ed in ord er t o e st ab li sh ha rm le ss erro r).

Here, th e di st ric t co ur t va rie d up ward fro m th e 46 –5 7- m on th Gui de li ne s ran ge

an d se nt en ced Dace to a 7 5

- mon th te rm of im pr is on m en t. In so do in g, th e di st ric t

2

c o u r t en ga ge d in a th or ou gh di sc us si on of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. The c o u r t hi gh li gh te d Dace’s pa rti cu la r ch arac te ris ti cs , no ti ng th at Dace had “ on e of th e m os t vi ol en t reco rd s fo r so m eo ne y ou r ag e th at I’ve se en ,” in cl ud in g pa rt ic ip at io n in

ro bb eri es res ul ti ng in bo di ly inju ry to th e v ic ti m s. T he co ur t em ph as iz ed th at Dace ha d pr ev io us ly be en se nt en ced to at le as t on e si x- y ear t e r m of im pr is on m en t, to no
ap pa r e n t d e t e r ren t effe ct , an d ex pr es se d th e vi ew th at “ y ou do n’t ge t le ss ti m e th e

m or e fel on ie s y ou co m

m it .” The co ur t rep eat ed ly st res se d th e ne ed fo r de te rren ce an d th e n eed to pro te ct th e p ub li c.

Abs en t th e se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t fo r a pr io r cri m e of vi ol en ce, bu t ap pl y in g 2 al l ot he r en ha nc em en ts an d red uc ti on s ap pl ie d by th e di st ric t co ur t, Dace wou ld ha ve ha d an of

fen se le ve l of 13 an d a cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y of IV, m ak in g th e ap pl ic ab le ad vi so ry

Gui de li ne s ra ng e 2 4– 30 m on th s.

-4

-The co ur t al so di sc us se d th e na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of th e in st an t of fen se , in cl ud in g th e at te nd an t, an d ve ry da ng ero us , hi gh -s pe ed ch as e. The co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at lea di ng po li ce o n a hi gh -s pe ed ch as e o fte n re su lt s i n i nju ry or d eat h, an d po se s

a su bs ta nt ia l th rea t t o i n n o cen t bysta nd ers

. And
, in ex pl ai ni ng th at it wou ld ha ve im po se d th e sa m e se nt en ce ha d it no t ap pl ie d th e e n h a nc em en t fo r a pr io r cri m e of vi ol en ce, t he co ur t ex pl ic it ly not ed th at it s up ward va ria nc e was ba se d on “ th e v ery

se rio us na tu re of th is of

fen se ,” an d “ th e da ng er to th e pu bl ic .” The co ur t m ad e cl ear th at it rel i e d on th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s— in de pe nd en t of th e Gui de li ne s ran ge —i n de ci di ng to va ry up ward

. Cf. Uni te d St at es v. Mu lv erh il l, 83 3 F.3 d 92 5, 93 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (rem an di ng fo r pr oc ed ur al erro r whe n “ [t]he di st ric t co ur t m ad e no affi rm at iv e
st at em en ts or in di cat io ns of it s i n t e n t i on to im po se th e sa m e se nt en ce ev en if [th e de fen da nt ’s] to ta l of

fen se le ve l were lo wer”) ; Icaz a, 49 2 F.3 d at 97 1 (rem an di ng wh e r e d i s tri ct co ur t’s ex pl an at io n fo r al te rn at iv e se nt en ce was no t su ffi ci en tl y de ta il ed ). The di st ric t co ur t bo th pr ov id ed a de ta il ed ex pl an at io n of it s reas on s fo r th e up ward va ria nc e an d ack no wled ge d th at th es e reas on s wou ld ap pl y ev en in th e face of Dace’s ob

jecti on , sa y in g “ ev en if I su st ai ne d al l o f you r ob jecti on s to th e
gu id el in es

. . . I’d st il l co m e to th e sa m e pl ace, ev en th ou gh th e gu id el in e cal cu la ti on s

m ay be di ffer en t.”

Giv en th e di st ric t co ur t’s th or ou gh di sc us si on of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s

un de rlyin g it s de ci si on to va ry up ward
, an d it s ex pl an at io n fo r th e se nt en ce im po se d

ev en ha d th e co ur t su st ai ne d Dace’s ob jecti on to th e Gui de li ne s cal cu la ti on , th e di st ric t co ur t’s p ro ced ur al erro r was ha rm le ss . W e aff irm.

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

-5

-