NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 08a0203n .06 Fi led : A pr il 17, 2 008 No . 07- 1366 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
UN ITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lee , v. ALEX IS L ’P RA E BA SS, Defendant -A ppel lan t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE U NI T ED ST AT ES DIST RI CT COURT FOR THE W ESTER N DI STRIC T OF MI CH IGAN

Before: KEI T H, DAUGHTREY, and GIBBO NS, Circuit Judges.
PERC UR IAM

. In t his se ntenc ing appeal , defendant Al ex is Bas s c ontends thatthe dis tr ic t c our

t er re d i n findi ng thathe w as a c areer offender

under U .S.S .G. § 4B 1.1( a) beca use h is prior off ense s do no t qualif y as crimes of

v iolence und er U.S.S.G . § 4B1 .2(a). In de ter mini ng Bas s’ s reci div is t s tatus, th e d is tr ic t c our t c onsi dered hi s p ri or st ate convictions for delivery of less tha n 50 g rams of cocain e, fo r “f leeing and eludin g a po lice off ic e r , a nd for “a ss aul ti ng /resi sti ng /obs tr uct ing a po li ce off ic er .” The de fendant now i nsi sts th a t t h e l a t t e r tw o o ffe n s e s a r e n o t c a t e g o r i c a l l y c r i me s o f v i o l e n c e , a s re q u i re d under Tay lor v. U nited St ates , 495 U.S. 575 (1990 ), in orde r to q ualif y und er Sectio n 4B1 .2(a), and thatthey canno t be qualif ied as such und er Shepar d v. Un it e d

Sta tes , 544 U .S. 13 (2 005) , bec ause the u nder ly ing facts re flect ed in the present ence re por t w ere tak en fromNo. 07-1366

Un ite d S tates v . B ass

- 2 - po l i c e i nc i de nt r ep or

ts a nd n otfrom She pard -e li g ibl e “ charg ing doc uments .” I n respon se, the g ov er nment poi nts to the Supreme Cou rt ’s re cent ru minat io n s in Jam es v. United States , ___ U. S. ___, 127 S.C t. 1586 (2 007) , to bol ste r it s arg ument that, unde r the
a p p lic a b le M i c h i g a n st a tu te s, bo th th e res ist in g-a n d -o b st ru ct in g of fe n se an d th e f le e in gand- elu din g offense q ual ify ca teg or ic all y

as cr imes of v iol ence. Bec ause w e need find th at
o n ly o n e o f

t h e s e two o f

fe n s e s qu a li f ie s fo r pu rp o s e s o f S e c t io n 4 B 1

. 1 , a n d b e c a u s e we conc lud e that Bass ’s co nv ic ti on for “a ss aul ti ng /resi sti ng /obs tr uct ing a po li ce off ic er” meets the Jam es

test un der the factu al circumsta nces of t his case, we a f

f irm the district court’s j u d g me n t , i n c l u d i n g t h e c o u rt ’ s s u b s e q u e n to rd e r re d u c i n g t h e d e fe n d a n t ’ s 226- month sent ence to 17 2 months

. Unde r the Sen ten cing Guid e li nes, “career of fend ers” are subjectto ma nda tory inc re ases i n the ir

offense lev els , and thei r cr imi nal hi sto ry ca teg or y i s set at C ateg or

y VI. See U

. S

. S

. G

. § 4 B 1

. 1 ( b )

. A d e fe n d a n tw i l l b e d e s i g n a t e d a s a c a re e r o ffe n d e r i f: (1 ) the d efendant w as at l eastei g hteen y ears o ld at t he ti me the d efendant commi tted the i nst ant o ff ense of conv ic ti on; (2 ) the i nst ant o ff ense of conv ic ti on i s a felony t h at i s e it her a c ri me of v iol ence or

a c ontroll ed s ubst ance offense; and ( 3) th e de fen da nth as a t l ea s t tw o pr i or fel on y c on v i c ti on s o f ei th er

a c r i me of v iol ence or

a c ontroll ed s ubst ance offense.
U. S.S. G. § 4B1. 1( a)

. T he Se nte ncing Guide lines de f ine a “crime of v iolence ” as:No. 07-1366

Un ite d S tates v . B ass

- 3 - any of fense und er fede ral or state law, punish a b le byimprison me nt for a ter m ex ceedi ng one y ear , t hat – (1 ) has as an el ement t he use, attempt ed use, or threatened us e of phy si cal force ag ain st the p erson of another , or (2) is burglary

of a dw elling, arson, or extortion, involv es use of ex plosives, or o t h e r w i s e i n v o l v e s c o n d u c t t h a t p re s e n t s a s e r i o u s p o t e n t i a l r is k o f phy si cal i nju ry

to another

. U. S.S. G. § 4B1. 2( a)

. T h e co mmentar

y to Sect ion 4B1. 2 pro vide s t h a t “m u rd e r, m a n sla u ght e r, kid n a p p in g, ag g ra v ated ass aul t, forci ble se x offenses , robber

y , ars on, e xtor

ti on, e xtor

ti onate extens ion of c r ed i t, an d bu rg l ar

y of a dw el l i ng ” q ua l i fy as c r i me s of v i ol en c e. U .S .S .G

. § 4B 1. 2 c mt n.1. Beyon d these en umera ted c ri mes, subs ect ion ( 1) demarcat es cer tai n c ri mes as
v iol ent b ecaus e the y

hav e the ac tual , attempted, or threatened us e of phy si cal forc e as an ele me n t

. I n a d d i t i o n , s u b s e c t i o n ( 2 ) a d d s s p e c i fi co ffe n s e s b u ti n d i c a t e s c l e a r l y t h a tthe li st is not ex cl usi v e by extendi ng the cat eg or y to incl u d e a n y c ri minal offense that “o ther w is e i nv olv es condu ct that present s a se ri ous potent ial r is k o f phy si cal i nju ry to
an ot he r” – a prov i s i on th at w e ha v e refe r red to as th e “ ot he r w ise clause .” See United States v. Col

li er , 493 F .3d 7 31, 7 33 n. 3 ( 6th C ir . 200 7)

. Preci sel y w hat felony

offenses q ual ify

as cr imes of v iol ence under thes e tw o tes ts has been t he topicof much l it ig ati on unde r the S entenc ing Gui del ine s. In Tay lor , t he Supreme Cou rtco ncl uded t hat a co urt “ must tak e a c ateg or ic al approach and first cons ide r the statu tory def inition o f the of fense .” United S tates

v. F or em an , 436 F .3d 6 38, 6 41 ( 6thNo. 07-1366

Un ite d S tates v . B ass

- 4 - Cir. 20 0 6 ) (in te rp re ti n g Tay lor , 495 U.S. 575)

. The cat eg or ic al approach g enerall y req uires the s entenc ing co urt to “confin e its inq uir y to the ‘s tatut or

y def ini ti ons of the pri or

offenses ,’ but i t may

al so loo k to ‘t h e c harg ing paper and jur y i nst ru cti ons. ’ The c our t s houl d not , howev er, look ‘to th e pa rticular f a c t s und erly ing [the de fend ant ’s prior] convi ctions. ’” Col li er , 4 9 3 F.3 d at73 3 (in te rn a l cit a ti o n s o m it te d ) (qu o ti n g Tay lor , 495 U.S. at 60 0, 60 2).
W here initial e xa m in a t io n o f t h e s t a t u t orylanguage fails to clarif y w het her a particu lar of

fense is a cr ime of

vio le n c e , t h e cou rt may then co nside r “ ‘the sta tuto ry defini ti on, c harg ing doc ument, w ri tten ple a ag re ement, transc ri pt of pl ea col loq uy , and any
ex pli ci t factu al findi ng by the tr ial j udge t o w hic h the defendant ass ented’ i n det er mini ng
w het her the crime w as a crime of v iolence .” For

em an , 4 3 6 F.3 d at64 1 (quo ti n g She pard , 544 U .S. at 16 ). Al thoug h Tay lor and She pard

focus on th e defini ti on of “ a v iol ent fel ony under the Ar med C areer

C ri minal Ac t, the a ppl ic ati on of these ru les to the d efini ti on of ‘crime of v iolence ’ und er the Sen ten cing Guide lines has becom e an accep ted practice in this Circuit.” Id.
T he f irst convi ction th at th e district court cha ract e ri ze d a s a crime of v iolence is
s h o w n o n t h e d e fe n d a n t ’ s re c o rd a s a c h a rg e o f “ f l e e i n g a n d e l u d i n g p o l i c e o f f i c e r
. ” W e hav e had prev iou s o cc asi ons on w hic h to re v iew the Mi chi g an sta tute prohi bit ing “ fleei ng and eludin g,” w hich provides: (1 ) A dr iv er

of a motor

v ehi cl e w ho i s g iv en by hand, v oic e, emerg ency l ig ht, or si re n a v is ual or audi ble si g nal by a po li ce or

co nser v ati on officer , acti ng in the lawf ul performa nce o f his or he r du ty, directing the driv er to bring hisNo. 07-1366

Un ite d S tates v . B ass

- 5 - or her motor v ehi cl e to a s top s hal l not w il lfull y fail to obey

that direct ion by inc re asi ng the speed of the v ehi cl e, exti ng uis hin g the li g hts of t he v ehi cl e, or oth erw ise atte mp ting to f lee or elud e the police or conse rv ation of f icer. Th is subs ect ion does not appl y unl ess the pol ic e or conse rv ati on officer g iv ing the signal is in uniform a nd th e of f icer's v ehicle is iden tif ied as an of f icial police or depar tment of natural re sources v ehi cl e. (2 ) Exce p t as prov ide d i n s ubsecti on ( 3) , ( 4) , or ( 5) , an ind iv idu al w ho v iol ates subsec ti on (1) is g uil ty of four th- deg re e f lee ing and elud ing , a felony pun ishab le by imp risonm entfor not m ore tha n 2 years or a f ine of not m ore than $2,000. 00, o r both. (3 ) Ex ceptas prov ide d i n s ubsecti on ( 4) or (5) , an in div idu al w ho v iol ates subs ect ion ( 1) i s g uil ty of thi rd -d eg re e fleei ng and elu din g , a felony pun ishab le by imp risonm entfor not m ore tha n 5 years or a f ine of not m ore t h a n $ 5 , 0 0 0

. 0 0 , o r b o t h , if 1 o r m o re o f

t h e fo ll o win g c ir c u m s t a n c e s a p p ly: (a ) The v iol ati on resul ts in a c oll is ion or ac ci dent. (b ) A por ti on of the v iol ati on oc cur re d in an area w here the speed limi t is 35 miles an hou r or l ess, w het her tha t spee d limit is poste d or impo sed a s a m a t t e r o f la w. (c) T h e in d ivid u a l h a s a p rio r co n vict io n fo r fo u rt h -d e gre e f le e in g an d el u d in g, atte mp ted fourth -degree f leeing and elud ing, or f leeing and eludin g und er a cur re nt or

former l aw of thi s s tate prohi bit ing su bst anti all y si mil ar co nduct

. Mi ch. C omp. Laws § 750. 479a.
Rev iew ing a c onvicti on unde r thi s M ic hig an s tatut e, w e hav e obs er v ed th at “[ b]ec ause nei ther [Sec ti on 4B1.2( a) ] nor it s appl ic ati on note names fleei ng and elu din g as a c ri me of v iol ence, thatoffense must eit her ( 1) hav e ‘ as an el ement t he us e, attempted use, or threatened us e of phy si cal forc e ag ainst the p erson of another ’ or ( 2) ‘ present [ ]
a s er iou s p otent ial r is k o f phy si cal i nju ry to another ’ to q ual ify ” under the g uid eli nes. United Sta tes v. Martin , 378 F .3d 5 78, 5 81 ( 6th Ci r. 2004). Becaus e f li g ht “c re ates a c onspi cuous potent ial r is k o f inj ur

y to pedes tr ian s, v ehi cl es shar ing the ro ad, pass eng ers in the fle ein gNo. 07-1366

Un ite d S tates v . B ass

- 6 - car and th e p ursui ng off ic er” and ev entual apprehens ion “ prov okes an i nev it abl e, es cal ated confro ntati on w it h the o ff ic er ,” w e c oncl uded i n Martin that the of fense poses re al ri sk s o f har m. Id. at 582. But , si g nific antl y , Ma rt in w as conv ic ted pursuant to s ubsecti ons (a ) and (b ), w hic h i ncrease li abi lit y whe re fli g ht ei ther ca uses a c oll is ion or

ac ci dent or

i nv olv es f lig ht i n a 3 5-mile-p er-hou r z one , lead ing us to conclud e tha t Martin’s actions d id in fact
cause “palpab le risk of physical i njury to ot hers.” Id. T h us, w it h reg ard to thi rd -d eg re e fleei ng and elu din g , w e hel d tha t “ [b]ec ause f le e in g and elu din g an o ff ic er w hil e i n a c ar gen erallyw ill prese nt seriou s potent ial r i s k s of ph y s i c al i nj ur y to th i rd pa rti es – the only relevant inquiry

– it necessa rily

q ualif ies as a ‘crime of

v iolence ’ unde r the Guid elines. ” Id. at 58 3.
In s o hol din g , w e obs er v ed th at “ the M ic hig an fleei ng -an d -eludi ng st atute may be
v iol ated by

co nductthati s pass iv e, no n- v iol ent, and non -t hreateni ng ” but a ls o c oncl uded that thi s fact“ does not d emand a different conc lus ion ” becau se the g uid eli nes do not
re q uire ac tual i nju ry

or v iol ence to ha v e oc cur re d i n order to make a n offense a c ri me of
v iol ence. Id. (in te rn a l ci tati on and q uotat ion mar ks omi tted)

. Ack now led g ing thatthe sent enci ng co urt w as obl ig ated to “ loo k a t the conductcharg ed in the indi ctmentw hen t he statu tory of

fense pote ntially covers vi olen t and non -v iolentcrimes,” w e con clude d tha t it made no “d ifferenc e tha t M arti n c oul d hav e v iol ated the sta tute by co mmitt ing a pr ior viol ati on of fourth -d eg re e fleei ng and elu din g ” becau se he had been c onv ic ted for fli g ht
caus ing an acc ide nt or in a 35-mi le- per-h our-z one, or both

. Id. at 584, 58 3. W e the refore hel d tha t t he offenses d efined i n s ubsecti ons (a ) or ( b) w ere c ateg oric a lly c rim es ofNo. 07-1366

Un ite d S tates v . B ass

- 7 - v iol ence but t hat a c onv ic ti on pursuant to subs ect ion (c ) w oul d re q uire ex aminat ion of the act ual ch arg ed c onduc t. See id. at 584.
In For em an , w e c onfir med the hol din g i n Martin thatthe offense of third- degr ee fleei ng and elu din g under ei ther su bsecti on ( a) or

( b) of the Mic h iga n s tatute w as cat eg or ic all y

a c ri me of v iol ence, bec ause iti nv olv ed a “s er iou s p otent ial r is k o f phy si cal in ju ry .” See 4 3 6 F

. 3 d a t6 4 1
- 4 3

. B u t , t h e re , w e a l s o re c o g n i z e d t h a t“ t h e c a t e g o ri cal approach is not deter minat iv e of w hether fourt h- deg ree fleei ng and elu din g i s a cr ime of
v iolence .” Id. at 64 3. F ou rth
- de g r ee f l ee i ng and e l ud i ng , w e c on c l ud ed , po s ed t he s am e potent ial ri sk of vi ole nce that “ [n]ea rl y

any cr imi nal offense” w oul d ent ail , id. , butbeca use itdi d not inv olv e the componen ts set out in subs ect ion s (a ) and ( b) , t he pot enti al w as not,
o n it s fa c e , su f

f ic ie n t ly ser

iou s to make t he offense i n MC L § 750.479 a( 3) (c ) a c ateg or ic al
cr ime of v iol ence under the federal g uid eli nes. Be caus e the di st ric t co urt found t o the cont rary , w e rema nde d Forem an’s case for reasse ssme n tund er She pard , i. e. , an
ex a mi n a t i o n o f t h e “ ‘ c h a rg i n g d o c u me n t , w r i t t e n p l e a a g re e me n t , t ra n s c r i p t of plea col loq uy , and any

ex pli cit f a ct u a l findi ng by the tr ial j udg e to w hic h the defendant
ass ented’ ” for fact s that w oul d es tabl is h hi s c onv ic ti on as one for a cr ime of v iol ence. For em an , 4 3 6 F.3 d at64 3 (quo ti n g She pard , 544 U .S. at 16 ).
In c lai ming i n thi s c ase that “n eit herthi rd deg re e nor fourt h deg re e fleei ng and elu din g i s a ca teg or ic al ‘c ri me of v iol ence, ’” the defendant has cle ar ly m is re ad th e bi ndi ng precede nt in thi s ci rc uit

. Con trar y to Bass ’s as ser

ti on, o ur dec is ion i n Martin makes thi rd
-No. 07-1366

Un ite d S tates v . B ass

The summary

in the prese ntencerepor t, based on a

police incident r eport, in d i cates that 1 “off icer s observe d Mr. B ass to be the driver a nd sole occ upant of a

vehicle spe edingat around 65 miles per hour in an ar ea poste d for spe eds not to exceed 45 miles per hour. The of

fice rs ac tivated their over head lights and siren a

nd Mr. Ba ss acc eler ated the ve hicle and f led . . . at spee ds exceeding 70 mil e s p e r h our. ” He wa s e ve ntu a lly a pp re he nd e d a ft e r a

ba nd on ing theve hic le and

fl e e ingon

fo ot.

- 8 - degree f leeing-and -eludin g convictions pu rsuan tt o s ubse ctions (a) and (b) categorically
cr imes of v iol ence, bas ed on sta tutor y l ang uag e. Onl y

w here a c onv ic ti on is based on subs ect ion ( c) m ustthe sent enci ng courtlook bey ond t he s tatut e to per mis si ble so ur ces to deter mine w hether the past conv ic ti on w as for a cr ime of v iol ence. See Martin , 378 F. 3d at 58 3; see also For

em an , 436 F.3d at 642. H ere, ho w ev er , t he record does not ind ic ate
w hic h subs ect ion formed the basi s for the defendant’ s conv ic ti on for th ird- deg re e fleei ng and el udi ng , lea v ing the poss ibi li ty that his co nv ic ti on c oul d hav e ar is en unde r subs ect ion (c ). Mo re ov er , the onl y under ly ing document ati on i n the record, al thoug h i t repor ts facts tha t ten d to ref lect com mission of a crime of

v iolence und er Martin , is the presen ten ce 1
re por t’ s s ummaryo f

f act s t aken from the pol ic e i nci dent re por t, w hic h i s n ot a q ual ify ing docu me nt un der She pard

. Thus, in order to predi cat e the defendant’ s s tatus as a c areer off ender on h is conv ic ti on for fleei ng and elu din g , the dis tr ic t cour t w oul d hav e to re ly

on She pard -q ualif ied do cum ent ation eithe r of a p rior con v iction und er su bsect ions (a) or (b),
or of one t hat o ther

w is e i nv olv ed a “ ser

iou s potent ial ri sk of ph y si cal inj ur y to anot her .” For em an , 436 F .3d a t 643 ( emphasi s i n or ig ina l)

. W e reach a di ff erent c oncl usi o n w it h reg ard to the s econd pr ior co nv icti on cons ide re d byt h e d is tr ic t c our t i n s entenc ing Bas s a s c areer cr imi nal , l is ted a sNo. 07-1366

Un ite d S tates v . B ass

- 9 - “a ss aul ti ng /resi sti ng /obs tr uct in g a pol ic e off ic er .” The de fendant c hal len g es thi s c onv icti on on m uch th e sam e basis as the f leeing-and -eludin g of fense , cont end ing th at the app licable Mi chi g an s tatut e under w hich he w as conv ic ted p ro hib it s n on- v iol ent a s w ell as v iol ent cond uc ta nd, therefore, th at vi olatio n of the sta tute cann ot, wi tho ut m ore, cat egorically const itute a crime of

v iolence und er Tay

lor

. T he defend antalso poin ts outthat , as w ith his “fle ein g and elu din g ” conv ic ti on, t he factua l summar y i n the present ence re por t i s t aken fr o m a p o lic e- inc ide nt repor t, w hic h, as w e hav e al re ady note d, do es not q ual ify under She pard

. The st atute i n q uest ion , M CL § 750.4 7 9 ( “Ass aul ti ng , batter ing , obs tr uct ing , or end angering an of

f icer performin g his or her dut ies”), prov ides as follows: (1 ) A p e rso n sh a ll n o t k n o wingly an d w ill f u lly do an y of th e fo llo wing: (a) Assau lt, bat ter, w oun d, obstruct, or end anger a me dical e xa min er, townshi p t reasu rer, judge, ma gistrate , proba tion o f f icer, parole of

f icer, prose cuto r, city

atto rney, court em ployee, court of f icer, or oth er of

f icer or duly aut horized per s o n s e rving or atte mp ting to serv e or execute an y process, ru le, or order made or

i ss ued by

l awful aut hor ity

or othe rw is e ac ti ng i n the performa nce o f

his or her duties. (b ) Ass aul t, batte r, w ound, obst ru ct, or endang e r an officer

enforc ing an ordin ance, l aw , r ule , orde r, or resol uti on of the common c ounci l of a ci ty board of tr ust ees, the common c ounci l or v il lag e c ounci l of an i ncor porated v il lag e, or

a t ow nshi p board of a to w nshi p. (2 ) Ex ceptas prov ide d in subsecti ons (3 ), (4) , and (5) , a person w ho v iol ates thi s s ect ion i s g uil ty

of a felony

puni shabl e by

impri sonmentfor

not more than 2 y ears o r a fine of not more tha n $2, 000.00, or both

. * * * * * (8 ) As used in thi s s ect ion :No. 07-1366

Un ite d S tates v . B ass

- 10 - (a ) "Obs tr uct " inc lud es the use or threatened us e of phy si cal i nter ferenc e or force or a k now ing fail ure to compl y w it h a l awful c ommand.
Mi ch. C omp. Laws § 750. 479.
Beca u se t h is offense i s n ot l is ted i n Sec ti on 4B1 .1 or the commentar

y to the g uid eli nes as a c ri me of v iol ence, w e first loo k t o the anal y si s i n Tay lor i n order

to det ermin e w het her an of fense charged und er MCL § 750 .47 9 cate gorically qualif ies as a
cr ime of v iol ence, an is sue of firs t i mpres si on for thi s c our t. See United

State s v. Herrera , 375 F .3d 3 99, 4 07 ( 6th C ir . 200 4) ( decl ini ng t o d e termine w hether s ect ion 750. 479( a) q ual ifies as a c ri me of v iol ence)

. The defendant arg ues that becau se the s tatut e prohi bit s mere “fai lure to c omply w it h a l awful c ommand,” presumabl y i ncl udi ng pas si v e noncompl ian ce, i t doe s n ot prosc ri be c ri mes of v iol ence as a cate gorical matter . I n the absen ce of an el ement of ac tual , attempted, or threatened us e of force ag ain st another person, the defendant c ontends , a pr ior co nv ic ti on unde r MC L § 7 50.479 fails to meet t he Tay lor cate gorical test. T he defend ant likew ise insists tha t beca use co nviction und er this sta tute is co ncei v abl y

possi ble in the absence of an act of vi ole nce, co mmiss ion of w hat he refers to as “ re si sti ng or obs tr uct ing ” does not neces sar il y enta il a “ ser

iou s pote ntial risk of p hy s i c al i nj ur

y ,” a s req ui r ed by U .S .S .G

. § 4B 1. 2( a) ( 2) , an d fai l s to q ua l i fy for t he s am e reaso n tha t a prior conviction for “f leeing and elud ing” und er MCL § 750 .47 9 a wa s held ins uff ic ien t i n For

em an
.No. 07-1366

Un ite d S tates v . B ass

- 11 - But thi s a rg ument c annot suc ceed for s ev eral re ason s. F irst, w e hav e hel d tha t “neith er actu al v iolence nor an imm inen t threa t of v iolence mustoccur before an of fense can q ual ify ” as a cri me of v iol ence under U .S.S .G. § 4B 1.2( a) (2 ). United S tates v. Pay ne , 163 F .3d 3 71, 3 75 ( 6th C ir . 199 8)

. Hen ce, l ar ceny from the person q ual ifies as a c ri me of
v iol ence, ev en i f committ ed su rreptit iou sl y , bec ause suc h ac ts are “ cl ear ly the ty pe of si tuati on th at c oul d resul t i n v iol ence” w here “the ri sk of ensuin g str ug g le is omni present .” Id. (internal quota tion m arks and citation omitt ed).
Seco nd, t he Sup re me C our t i n Jam es

has w arne d against “requir in g tha t every
conc eiv abl e factual off e n se c ov ered by a s tatut e mustnec ess ar il y presenta s er iou s potent ial r is k o f inj ur

y before the o ff ense can be deemed a v iol ent fel ony .” 127 S.C t. at 1 5 9 7 . Inst ead, Jam es i ns tr uc ts u s , “ th e prop er i nq ui r y i s w he th er

t he c onduct
e n co m p a ss e d by

the ele ments of the offense, i n the ordin ar y ca se, present s a se ri ous pot ent ial risk o f

injury to ano the r.” Id. Thus , i n hol din g thatatt empted b urg lar y under F l or i da ’ s i nt er pret at i on of i ts burg l ar y st at ut e c on s ti tu te s a c r i me o f v i ol en c e, t he S up rem e Cou rtsa id that “[ a]s l ong as an off ense is of a ty pe th at, by i ts nature, present s a se ri ous pot ent ial risk of injury to anoth er, it satisf ies the requireme nts of [secti o n 4 B 1 .2(a)’s] residua l prov ision.” Id. W it hout doubt, the Jam es co urt w oul d be eq ual ly

di smi ss iv e of the
arg ument present ed i n this ca se, i. e. , t hat b ecaus e the ac t of dec li nin g to prov ide document s t o a c ity

att or ney

co uld theo retically

q ual ify as “ obst ru cti on” under M CL § 750

. 4 7 9 a , a p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n u n d e r t h e s t a t u t e c a n n o t q u a l i fy c a t e g o r i c a l l y a s a c ri me of
v iol ence.No. 07-1366

Un ite d S tates v . B ass

- 12 - This co ncl usi on bec omes o bv iou sl y co rrectw hen w e l ook to t he ac tual co nv icti on at issue her e , wh ich w as for “assaultin g/resisting/obstructin g a po lice of f icer.” It i s abundant ly

cl ear from t he charg e it sel f, spec ific all y from the use of the te rm “a ss aul t,” that the pr io r c o n v i c t i o n w a s fo r a c r i me o f v i o l e n c e , e i t h e r b e c a u s e i t w a s “ a n [ ] o ffe n s e
. . . tha t has as a n elem entthe use , atte mp ted use, or thre ate ned use of physical force against the p erson of another ,” U .S.S .G. § 4B 1.2( a) (1 ), or becau se, at the v er y l east , i t “ inv olv es condu ct that present s a se ri ous potent ial ris k o f phy si cal i nju ry

to another .” U .S.S .G. § 4B1.2( a) (2 ). W e the re f o re h o ld t h at t he di str ic t c our t di d noter r in findi ng thatthe defendant had tw o pr ior felony conv ic ti ons for cr imes of v iol ence under sec ti on 4B1 .1( a) (3 ) and w as subject to sen ten cing as a career of fend er und er section 4B1. 1(b).
In t his ca se, the defendant’ s req uestfor a remand appe ars p arti cul ar ly futil e not si mply on the basi s of ou r deter minat ion that he w as proper ly desi g nated as a caree r off ender bas ed on the e x is tenc e of tw o pr ior q ual ify ing co nv ic ti ons for dr ug -t ra ff ic ki ng and “a ss aul ti ng /resi sti ng /obs tr uct ing a po li ce off ic er ,” but al so becaus e at lea st three of hi s 1 7 other pr ior co nv ic ti ons li ste d i n the p re se n te n ce re por t mi g ht al so q ual ify

as cr imes of
v iol ence upon c los er

i nv est ig ati on. Theyi ncl ude a 1985 bu rg lar y co nv ict io n , a 1991
conv ic ti on for ag g ra v ated ass aul t, and a 1993 conv ic ti on for car ry ing a c oncea led w eapon. The flaw in the repor

t is thatinformati on reg ardin g m ostof the defendant’ s p ri or

co nv icti ons
w as g lea ned pr imar il y from pol ic e i nci dent re por ts, rather

than She pard

-q ual ified document s.No. 07-1366

Un ite d S tates v . B ass

- 13 - For the re asons set out abov e, w e AFFI RM the dis tr ic t c our t’ s j udg ment, inc lud ing the order sent encin g the defend antas a career of fend er.