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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 2- 40 09

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

Cal vi n B an kh ead

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 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Octo be r 25 , 20 13 Fil ed : Fe br

ua ry 12 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, GRUEND ER, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Fo ll owi ng hi s gu il ty pl ea to th e c h a r g e o f b ei ng a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , a vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g)
, Cal vi n Ban kh ead rece i v ed a 18 0- m on th

m an da to ry m in im

um se nt en ce un de r th e Arm ed Care er Cri m in al Act (“ ACCA”)

. Fo r th e rea so ns set for th be lo w, we rev ers e an d re m an d fo r res en te nc in g.The writ te n pl ea ag reem en t, ex ecu te d by Ban kh ead an d th e Gov ern m en t,

sp eci fie d a st at ut o r y m ax im um te rm of 12 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Howev er, th e
pr ob at io n of

fic e pr ep ared a pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (“ PSR” ) un co ve rin g fo r th e fir st ti m e Ban kh ead ’s 19 90 juv en il e ad jud ic at io n fo r arm ed ro bb ery un de r Ill in oi s la w. The Ill in oi s arm ed ro bb ery st at ut e pr ov id ed in rel ev an t pa rt: “ A pe rs on co m m it s

arm ed ro bb ery whe n he or sh e vi ol at es Sect io n 18 -1 [es ta bl is hi ng el em en ts of

un arm ed ro bb ery] whi le he or sh e carr ie s on or ab ou t hi s or he r pe rs on , or is

ot he rwis e arm ed wit h a da ng ero us weap on .” Ill

. Rev

. St at ., ch

. 38
, § 18 -2 (Sm it hHur d 19 90 ). Acco rd in g to th e PSR, th is juv en il e ad jud ic at io n was a pr ed ic at e of fen se

un de r th e ACCA th at , i n co m bi na ti on wit h two ot he r pr ed ic at e of fen se s co m

m it te d by Ban kh ead
, co m

pe ll ed a m an da to ry m in im um te rm of 18 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e)( 1)

.

At se nt e n c i n g, th e di st ric t co ur t of fere d to al lo w Ban kh ead to wit hd raw hi s
gu il ty p le a be cau se , a t th e ti m e of hi s pl ea, he ha d no t be en in fo rm ed of th e co rrec t

m ax im um se nt en ce— no w li fe

— n o r ha d he be en in fo rm ed of th e fif te en -y ear

m an da to ry m in im

um se nt en ce. Se e Fed

. R. C r i m. P

. 1 1( b) (1 ). Ban kh ead in st ead

as se rte d he sh ou ld be se nt en ced acco rd in g to th e or ig in al pl ea ag reem en t, whi ch di d

no t co ns id er th e juv en il e ad jud ic at io n or t h e ACCA fo r pu rp os es of cal cu la ti ng th e
st at ut or y m ax im

um or m an da to ry m in i mu m se nt en ce. The di st ric t co ur t, ho wev er,
st at ed th at th e or ig in al pl ea ag reem en t was “ no t on th e ta bl e” gi ve n th at th e PSR ha d

rev eal ed fact s ab ou t th e juv en il e ad jud ic at io n th at th e co ur t was “ no t go in g to tu rn
away fro m .” Ban kh ead no ne th el e s s d e c li ne d to wit hd raw hi s gu il ty pl ea. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t co nd uc te d an ev id en ti ary he ar ing to de te rm in e whe th er Ban kh ead ’s juv en il e ad

jud ic at io n s a t is fie d th e ACCA req ui rem en t th at an act of juv en il e d el in qu en cy

in vo lv e “ th e u se or carr y in g o f a fi rear m , kn ife , or d es tru ct iv e d ev ic e” in or de r to tri gg er th e ACCA’s se nt en ci ng pr ov is io ns

. 18 U.S

. C

. § 92 4( e)(2 )(B)

. Bas ed on Ill in oi s ch arg in g do cu m en ts , th e di st ric t co ur t ap pl ie d th e

m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch to fin d th at Ban kh ead
, as a juv en il e, ha d carr ie d a .38

- cal ib er rev ol ve r du rin g th e c om m is si on of th e arm ed ro bb ery. The di st ric t co ur t

-2

-th eref

or e im po se d t h e ACCA m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce of 18 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t.

Ban kh ead ’s or ig in al br ie f ch al le ng ed th is se nt e n c e on two gr ou nd s. Fi rs t, Ban kh ead arg ue d th e di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou s l y r e li ed on sp ars e an d un cl ear do cu m en ta ry reco rd s in de te rm in i n g th at th e juv en il e ad jud ic at io n tri gg ered th e fif te en -y ear m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce. Seco nd
, Ban kh ead co nt en de d Ru le 11 of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e was vi ol at ed be cau se he was no t ad vi se d at th e ti m e of hi s pl ea th at th e ACCA m ax im um or m an da to ry m in im

um se nt en ce wou ld

ap pl y

. Sh or tl y th erea fte r, th e Uni te d St at es Su p r em e Co ur t he ld th at se nt en ci ng

co ur ts can no t em

pl oy th e m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch whe n th e pr op os ed pr ed ic at e of fen se “ ha s a si ng le , in di vi si bl e se t of el em en ts .” Des ca mps v. Uni te d St at es , 5 70 U.S.

--- , 1 3 3 S

. Ct

. 22 76
, 22 82 (2 01 3)

. Bo th Ban kh ead an d th e Gov ern m en t ha ve
ag reed i n su bs eq ue nt su pp le m en ta l br ie fin g th at , un de r Des ca mps , Ban kh ead ’s juv en il e arm ed ro bb ery ad jud ic at io n do es no t qu al ify as an ACCA pr ed ic at e of fen se

. Bec au se we ag ree th at Des ca mps ap pl ie s in th is cas e, we re ve rs e Ban kh ead ’s se nt en ce

an d re m an d fo r res en te nc in g.

A de fen da nt who vi ol at es § 92 2( g) is su bjec t to a m an da to ry m in im um te rm of
18 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t if he ha s “ th ree pr ev io u s c o n v ic ti on s

. . . fo r a vi ol en t fel on y .” 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e)( 1) . A “ pr ev io us co nv ic ti on ” “ in cl ud es a fin di ng th at a
pe rs on ha s co m

m it te d an act of juv en il e de li nq ue nc y in vo lv in g a vi ol en t fel on y .” Id

. § 92 4( e)(2 )(C)

. Fo r an act of juv en il e de li nq ue nc y to “ in vo lv [e] a vi ol en t fel on y ,” th e ACCA req ui res th at it en ta il “ th e us e or carr y in g of a fir e a r m, k n i f e, or de st ru ct iv e de vi ce.” Id

. § 92 4( e)(2 )(B)

. Ban kh ead was ad jud ic at ed de li nq ue nt o f a n Ill in oi s
st at ut e cri m in al iz in g ro bb ery co m m it te d by a pe rs on who “ carr ie s on or ab ou t hi s or he r pe rs on , or is ot he rwis e arm ed wit h a da ng ero us weap on .” Ill

. Rev

. St at ., ch

. 38
, § 1 8- 2. In th is cas e, th e d is tri ct co ur t ap pl ie d t he m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch by

co ns ul ti ng th e Il li no is ch arg in g d oc um en ts to de te rm in e th at a .38 -cal ib er rev ol ve r, whi ch sa ti sf

ie s th e ACCA req ui rem en t, was carr ie d by Ban kh ead du rin g th e ro bb ery.

-3

-“ [T]he m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch pe rm it s se nt en ci ng co ur ts to co ns ul t a li m it ed

cl as s of do cu m en ts , su c h a s in di ct m en ts an d jury in st ru ct io ns , to de te rm in e whi ch al te rn at iv e fo rm ed th e ba si s of th e de fen da nt ’s pr io r co nv ic ti on .” Des ca mps v. Uni te d
S ta te s , 13 3 S. Ct

. at 22 81 ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Tu cker
, --- F.3 d ---, 20 14 WL 30 47 40 , a t *1 , s li p op . a t 3 (8 th Ci r. Ja n. 29 , 2 01 4) (en ba nc )

. S u c h do cu m en ts are kn own as Sh ep ar d do cu m en ts

. Uni te d St at es v. W il li ams , 62 7 F.3 d 32 4, 32 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (ci ti ng Sh ep ar d v . Uni te d S ta te s , 54 4 U.S. 1 3, 1 5 (2 00 5) ).

In Des ca mps , ho wev er, th e Su pr em e Co ur t cl ari fie d t h a t “ se nt en ci ng co ur ts
may n o t ap pl y th e m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch whe n th e cri m e of whi ch th e de fen da nt was co nv ic te d ha s a si ng le
, in di vi si bl e se t of el em en ts .” 13 3 S. Ct

. at 22 82 ;

se e al so Tu cker , 2 01 4 W L 3 04 74 0, at *3 , s li p op . at 8 (ov erru li ng ci rcu it pr eced en t

“ to th e ex te nt th at it au th or iz es ap pl y in g t h e mo d i f i ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch to

an y th in g ot he r th an ex pl ic it ly di vi si bl e po rti on s of st at ut es ”). In ot he r wor ds
, th e

m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch m ay be u s e d o nl y “ whe n a pr io r co nv ic ti on is fo r vi ol at in g a so -cal le d ‘div is ib le st at ut e’” whi ch “ se ts ou t on e or m or e el em en ts of th e of fen se in th e al te rn at iv e.” 1 3 3 S

. Ct

. at 22 81

. Acco rd in g to th e Su pr em e Co ur t,

co ns ul ta ti on of Sh ep ar d do cu m en ts is warra nt ed on ly whe n th e st at ut e of co nv ic ti on

em br aces se ve r a l a l t e r n a ti ve ba se s fo r co nv ic ti on , no t al l of whi ch qu al ify as an ACCA pr ed ic at e, an d th e se nt en ci ng co ur t m us t de te rm in e “wh i c h st at ut or y ph ras e

was th e ba si s fo r co nv ic ti on .” Id

. at 22 85 -8 6 (q uo ti ng Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 55 9 U.S. 13 3, 1 44 (20 10 )).

Here, t h e I ll in oi s st at ut e of co nv ic ti on is in di vi si bl e reg ard in g th e type of da ng ero us weap on carr ie d

. Th e h a ll m ark of di vi si bi li ty is th e en um erat io n of al te rn at iv e ba se s fo r co nv ic ti on se pa rat ed by t he di sju nc ti v e “o r

. ” Here, un li ke th e ACCA, th e st at ut e do es no t en um erat e a li st of di ffer en t weap on s su ffi ci en t to su st ai n

a co nv ic ti on

. Rat he r, th e st at ut e on ly req ui res th at th e ro bb ery was co m m it te d with

a “ da ng ero us weap on ”—a n in di vi si bl e te rm

. As th e Su pr em e Co ur t di d in Des ca mps ,
we co nc lu de th at “ [t]he m od ifi ed ap pr oa ch th us ha s no ro le to pl ay in th is cas e” gi ve n

-4

-th at “ [t]he di sp ut e he re do es no t c o n c e r n a n y li st of al te rn at iv e el em en ts ” as to th e

type o f da ng ero us weap on carr ie d. Des ca mps , 13 3 S . Ct. at 22 85

.

Bec au se th e da ng ero us -weap on el em en t of th e Ill in oi s st at ut e is te xt ua ll y in di vi si bl e, we ne xt co nd uc t a cat eg or ic al el em en t s

- b a s e d in qu iry. Se e Des ca mps , 13 3 S. Ct

. at 22 93

. W e m us t de te rm in e whe th er Ban kh ead ’s ad jud ic at io n un de r th e in di vi si bl e da ng ero us -weap on el em en t ne ces sa ril y m ean s th at he was ad jud ic at ed fo r

us e or carr y in g of a fir earm , kn ife
, or de s t r u ct iv e de vi ce su ch th at th e ad jud ic at io n

co ns ti tu te s an ACCA p red ic at e o ffen se . W e h ol d i t d oe s n ot

.

Th e da ng ero us -weap on el em en t in th e Ill in oi s st at ut e is br oa de r th an t h e ACCA’s fir earm , kn ife
, or de st r u c t i v e d ev ic e req ui rem en t. W hi le th e da ng ero us

weap on el em en t of th e Ill in oi s st at ut e can be s a t i s f i ed by th e carr y in g of a fir earm , kn ife
, or de st ru ct iv e de vi ce, th e da ng ero us -weap on el em en t can als o be sat is fie d by

ot he r ob jects th at wou ld no t sa ti sf y th e ACCA req ui rem en t. Se e Ill in oi s v. Hil l
, 36 2 N.E.2d 47 0, 47 1 (Il l. App

. Ct

. 19 77 ) (h ol di ng th at an “ in st ru m en ta li ty us ed to th reat en

a vi ct im of a ro bb ery [th at ] i s cap ab le of be in g us ed in a m an ne r to cau se ha rm or in jury th ereb y co m

pe ls a fin di ng th at th e in st ru m en ta li ty is a da ng ero us weap on ”); Ill in oi s v. Rat li

ff , 3 17 N.E.2d 63 , 6 4 ( I l l

. A p p

. Ct . 1 97 4) (o bs erv in g th at “ a br ic k, a ba ll ba t, or an y th in g el se whi ch co ul d be ut il iz ed in a m an ne r da ng ero us to th e ph y si cal well -b ei ng of th e in di vi du al th reat en ed ” co ul d be a da ng ero us weap on ). As in Des ca mps , th is cas e co nc ern s “ a si m pl e di sc rep an cy ” be twee n th e ACCA ( i.e. , th e

na rro wer “ fir earm , kn ife
, or de st ru ct iv e de vi ce” req ui rem en t) an d th e st at e st at ut e of

co nv ic ti on ( i.e. , th e br oa de r da ng ero us -weap on el em en t). 13 3 S. Ct

. at 22 85

. Our in qu iry, th en , en ds wit h th e cat eg or ic al ob se rv at io n th at Ban kh ead ’s cri m e of

co nv ic ti on do es no t co rres po nd to th e na rro wer ACCA req ui rem en t. Fo r th is reas on , th e Ill in oi s st at ut e can no t fo rm th e ba si s of “ an act of juv en il e de li nq ue nc y in vo lv in g

a vi ol en t fel on y ” fo r pu rp os es of im po si ng th e ACCA m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce. 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e)( 2) (C).

-5

-Fo r th es e rea so ns , we rev ers e an d re m an d fo r res en te nc in g. 1

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g.

As I am bo un d by th e en ba nc co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n of Des cam ps v. Uni te d
St at es , 13 3 S. Ct

. 22 76 (2 01 3)
, in Uni te d St at es v. Tuc ke r, 20 14 W L 30 47 40 (8 th Ci r. Ja n. 2 9, 2 01 4) , I co nc ur in th e jud gm en t.

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

Bec au se ou r h o l d in g un de r Des ca mps ren de rs m oo t Ban kh ead ’s or ig in al 1
gr ou nd s fo r ap pe al , we dec li ne to ad dr es s t he m

. -6

-