FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Febr uar y 7, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 12200 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 4 5 4 - C R - 3 - L AC U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J U A N C A R L O S A L F A R O - G R A M A J O , a .k .a . J u a n M a n u e l M o n te r o s a , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 7, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , B A R K E T T an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: Juan C ar l os A l fa ro-G ra m aj o app ea l s hi s 37-m on th sent ence i m po se d2

f ol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty pl e af orr e - e ntry i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s a f t e rde por t a t i on w i tho utperm i ss i on , i n v i ol at i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6. H e a rgues thatthe di stri ct courterre d i n enh anci ng hi s bas e off ense l evel un der the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1. 2(b)(1)(C) (200 6) predi ca t ed on a pre vi ou s T exas c o n v i c t i o n f

o rb u r g l a ry o f

av e h i c l e . We A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D T he i nve s t i ga t i on pr i ort o A l f a r o- G r a m a

j o’ s s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng r e ve a l e d the fol l ow i ng : A T exas hi gh w aypatrol offi ce r had ob se rved a vehi cl e bei ng dri ven w i tho uta r egi stra t i on t ag. W hen the offi ce r pul l ed the vehi cl e over, the dri ver had sa i d thathe di d n othave a dri ver’ s l i ce nse, bu thad h anded the offi ce r aT enness ee i de nt i f i c a t i on c a r d i s s ue d i n the na m e of A r tur o N a va rr e t e . A c he c k of the i dent i fi ca t i on ca rd re veal ed thatthe pers on t o w ho m the ca rd had b ee n i ss ued h ad a ls o b e e n is s u e d ad r iv e r ’s lic e n s e , b u t w h e n th e o f f ic e ra s k e d th e d r iv e rif

h is nam e w as re al l y A rturo N avarre t e, he st at ed thathi s nam e w as ac tual l y Juan M anuel M on t er oso. D uri ng a l at eri nt ervi ew w i th the dri ver, i tbeca m e c l ea r that th e d ri v er’ s tru e i d en t i ty w as Ju an C arl o s A l faro -G ram aj o . T h e o ffi cer al so de t e rm i ne d tha tA l f

a r o- G r a m a

j o ha d be e n de por t e d i n 2005 a nd ha d r e e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s w i thouta uthor i z a t i on. In ca l cul at i ng the prop ergu i del i ne se nt ence , the prob at i on offi ce as si gn ed3

A l fa ro-G ra m aj o a base offe nse l evel of ei gh t , pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1. 2(a) . It th e n ap p lie d a n e ig h t- le v e l in c r e a s e p u r s u a n t to § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) , b e c a u s e it d e te rm in e d th a t A lf

a r o - G r a m a

jo h a d b e e n c o n v ic te d o f a n a g g r a v a te d f

e lo n y in T e xa s : bur gl a ry of

ave hi c l e . T he s ubtr a c t i on of thr e e l e ve l s f

ora c c e pt a nc e of re spon si bi l i ty, pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1(a) , (b), re sul t ed i n a t ot al offe nse l evel o f 1 3 . A l f a r o - G r a ma

j o ’ s c r i mi n a l h i s t o ry c a t e g o ry w a s V I . Th i s g a v e h i m a gu i del i ne ra ng e of 33 t o 4 1 m on ths of i m pri sonm ent . T he prob at i on offi ce r e c o m m e n d e d as e n te n c e o f 3 7 m o n th s . A lf a r o - G r a m a

jo o b je c te d to th e e ig h t- le v e l in c r e a s e p u r s u a n t to § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( C ) , a r gui ng tha thi s s t a t e c onvi c t i on f orbur gl a ry of

ave hi c l e w a s not a n a g g r a v a te d f

e lo n y . A t th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h e a r d a r g u m e n ts on w he the rbur gl a ry of

ave hi c l e w a s a n a ggr a va t e d f e l ony . A l f

a r o- G r a m a

j o, c i t i ng N i nth C i r c ui tc a s e l a w , a r gue d tha tthe of f e ns e w a s nota n a ggr a va t e d f e l ony . T he go vernm entre spon ded thatthe offens e w as a c ri m e of vi ol ence because i ti nv ol ved as u b s ta n tia l r is k th a t p h y s ic a l f o r c e m ig h t b e u s e d a g a in s t th e p e r s o n o rp r o p e r ty of another. T he go vernm entfurther a rgued thatthe 16 -l evel enhancem entun der U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) o u g h t to ap p ly . T he gove rnm e nta l s o s ubm i tt e d i nt o e vi de nc e the i ndi c tm e ntr e l a t e d t o the T ex as o ffen se. T h e i n d i ctm en tch arg ed th atA l faro -G ram aj o “ d i d u n l aw fu l l y,Although the rec ord on appeal lists five separate volumes, the four th and fifth volumes are 1 designated a s sub-volumes Iand IIof a sing le volume 4. In his first brief, Alf

aro- Gramajo also argued extensively that burg lary of a vehicle does not 2 constitute a burg lary

offense for

purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) (G). The g overnment conce des

4 know i ngl y a nd i nt e nt i ona l l y br e a k i nt o a nd e nt e rave hi c l e , w i thoutthe e f f e c t i ve c ons e ntof

. . . the ow ne rthe r e of

, w i th the i nt e ntt o c om m i tthe f t [ . ] ” R . E xh. , G ov. 1 ; R 4 - I a t 5 . T h e c o u r t th e n r e s c h e d u le d th e s e n te n c in g p r o c e e d in g s o th a t it c o u ld

1 c o n s id e rth e m a tte rf

u r th e r . W he n the pr oc e e di ng r e s um e d tw o w e e ks l a t e r , the c our tde t e rm i ne d tha tthe e i ght - l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntdi d appl y be c a us e A l f a r o- G r a m a

j o’ s of f e ns e f i tthe defi ni t i on of aggravat ed fe l on y. T he courtno t ed that“ you can w ea ve your w ay throu gh the vari ou s s ec t i on s a nd subsec t i on s a nd getback t o thatdefi ni t i on i n m ore w ay s than o ne. ” R 4-II at5. H ow ever , the courtre fuse d t o app l y the 16 -l evel enhancem entbecause the defi ni t i on of “ cr i m e of vi ol ence ” f or the pu rpose of that enhancem entre qu i re d thatthe charged offe nse i ncl ud e the use of vi ol ence as an el em entof the offens e, and the T exas st atut e a ti ss ue di d n otdo so. Id. A ft er c ons i de r i ng the 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s , the c our ts e nt e nc e d A l f a r oG r a m a jo to 3 7 m o n th s o f

im p r is o n m e n t. O n appe a l , A l f

a r o- G r a m a

j o a r gue s tha tbur gl a ry of ave hi c l e doe s not c o n s titu te a n a g g r a v a te d f e lo n y f o rth e p u rp o s e o f

th e § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( c ) b e c a u s e it is nei ther a n att em pt ed theftoffe nse nor a c ri m e of vi ol ence . 2that it does not, and the issue wa rra nts no further discussion.

5 I I . DI S CUS S I ON W e r e vi e w de novo the i s s ue of w he the rapr i orc onvi c t i on qua l i f i e s f or e nha nc e m e ntunde rU . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 2( b) . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L l a nos - A gos t a de r o, 486 F .3 d 1 1 9 4 , 1 1 9 6 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) ( p ercu riam ). W e m ay af firm th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e nton a ny gr ound tha tf i nds s uppor ti n the r e c or d. B r ow n v. J ohns on, 387 F .3 d 1 3 4 4 , 1 3 5 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . T he S ent enci ng G ui del i nes provi de for abase offe nse l evel of ei gh ti f a d e f e n d a n t a lie n h a s b e e n c o n v ic te d o f u n la w f u lly r e e n te r in g th e U n ite d S ta te s . U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 ( a ) . “I f th e d e f e n d a n t p r e v io u s ly w a s d e p o r te d , o ru n la w f u lly re m ai ned i n the U ni t ed S t at es , af t er. . . a c on vi ct i on for a n agg ra vat ed fe l on y, ” that ba s e i s i nc r e a s e d by e i ghtl e ve l s . U . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( C ) . T he appl i c a t i on no t es for thi s s ec t i on defi ne “ aggravat ed fe l on y” as havi ng “ the m ea ni ng gi ven that t erm i n . . . 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (43). ” U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1. 2, com m ent . (n. 3(A )) . A . T h e f t o rA tte m p te d T h e f

t T h e I m m ig r a tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t ( “I N A ” ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 , in c lu d e s in the defi ni t i on of aggravat ed fe l on y “ a theftoffe nse ( i ncl ud i ng re ce i ptof st ol en pr ope r ty ) orbur gl a ry of f e ns e f orw hi c h the t e rm of

i m pr i s onm e nt[ i s ] a tl e a s tone y e a r ,” a n d a ls o in c lu d e s a n a tte m p t o rc o n s p ir a c y to c o m m it s u c h a n o f f e n s e . 86

U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (43)(G ), (U ). B ec ause C on gres s di d n otdefi ne the t erm s “ theft offe nse” or “ bu rgl ary off ense , ” c ou rt s def

i ne them i n “ the generi c s ense i n w hi ch the t e rm [ s a r e ] now us e d i n the c r i m i na l c ode s of m os tS t a t e s . ” S e e T a y l orv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 495 U . S . 575, 598, 110 S . C t . 2143, 2158 ( 1990) ( i nt e rpr e t i ng the te rm “b u r g la ry ” f

o rth e p u rp o s e o f

ap p ly in g 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( e ) ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e ld th a t, in d e te rm in in g w h e th e rap r io rs ta te o f f e n s e q u a lif

ie s a s ap r e d ic a te o f

f e n s e in ac r im in a l e n h a n c e m e n t s ta tu te , c o u r ts g e n e r a lly m u s t l ook onl y t o the f

a c tof c onvi c t i on a nd the s t a tut ory de f i ni t i on of the pr i orof f e ns e . T hi s c a t e gor i c a l appr oa c h, how e ve r , m a y pe rm i tthe s e nt e nc i ng c our tt o go be y ond the m e r e f a c tof c onvi c t i on i n ana rr ow r a nge of c a s e s w he r e aj ury w a s a c tua l l y r e qui r e d t o f i nd a l l the e le m e n ts o f

[ th e ] g e n e r ic [ o f

f e n s e ].” T a y l or , 495 U . S . a t602, 110 S . C t . a t2160 ( f ootnot e om i tt e d) ; s e e a l s o G onz a l e s v. D ue na s - A l va r e z , __ U . S . __, __, 127 S . C t . 815, 818 ( 2007) ( obs e rvi ng tha t , f or p u rp o s e s o f

8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 , “[ i]n d e te rm in in g w h e th e rac o n v ic tio n . . . f a lls w ith in th e s c o p e o f

alis te d o f

f e n s e ( e .g ., “th e f

t o f f e n s e ” ) , th e lo w e rc o u r ts un i form l y have app l i ed the approach . . . se tforth i n T ay l or v. U ni t ed S t at es ”) . If the s t a t e s t a tut e i nc l ude s a ddi t i ona l c onduc ttha tdoe s notm e e tthe e l e m e nt s of the ge ne r i c of

f e ns e i n the e nha nc e m e nts t a tut e , the n s e nt e nc i ng c our t s c a n l ook a tthe c h a r g in g d o c u m e n ts a n d ju ry in s tru c tio n s to s h o w th a t th e d e f e n d a n t w a s a c tu a lly7

c o n v ic te d o f

th e g e n e r ic o f

f e n s e . T a y lo r , 4 9 5 U .S . a t 6 0 2 , 1 1 0 S . C t. 2 1 4 3 a t 2 1 6 0 . T hi s hol di ng no w ext ends t o con vi ct i on s f ol l ow i ng gu i l ty pl ea s. S hepard v. U ni t ed S t a t e s , 544 U . S . 13, 19, 125 S . C t . 1254, 1259 ( 2005) . I n s uc h c a s e s , t o de t e rm i ne w hether the offens e of c on vi ct i on i s i ncl ud ed i n the generi c off ense tri gg er i ng an e nha nc e m e nt , c our t s m a y c ons i de rthe c ha r gi ng doc um e nt , pl e aa gr e e m e nt , a nd p le ac o llo q u y tr a n s c r ip t o ro th e rc o m p a r ab le r e c o r d e s tab lis h in g th e f a c tu a l b a s is f o rth e p le a . I d . a t 2 6 , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 1 2 6 3 . W e ha ve c onf

i rm e d tha tthe ba s i c e l e m e nt s of age ne r i c the f

tof f e ns e i nc l ude a“ t a ki ng of

pr ope r ty ” w i th “ c r i m i na l i nt e ntt o de pr i ve the ow ne rof the r i ght s a nd benefi t s of ow ners hi p, even i f s uch d epri vat i on i s l es s than t ot al or perm anent . ” Ja gg ernauth v . U . S . A tt orney G ener al , 43 2 F . 3d 13 46 , 13 53 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c ur i a m ) ( quot a t i ons om i tt e d) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V a s que z - F l or e s , 265 F . 3d 1122, 1125 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ; H e rna nde z - M a nc i l l av. I N S , 246 F . 3d 1002, 1009 (7th C i r. 20 01 ). S i m i l ar l y, w e have re cogn i ze d thatthe “ basi c e l em ent s of a n a tt e m pta r e ( 1) a n i nt e ntt o e nga ge i n c r i m i na l c onduc ta nd ( 2) c onduc tc ons t i tut i ng a ‘ subst ant i al st ep’ t ow ar ds the com m i ss i on of the subst ant i ve offens e w hi ch stro n g l y co rro b o rat es th e d efen d an t ’ s cri m i n al i n t en t . ” U n i t ed S t at es v . C o l l i n s, 7 7 9 F .2 d 1 5 2 0 , 1 5 3 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) . T h e T ex as st atu t e u n d er w h i ch A l faro -G ram aj o w as co n v i ct ed p ro v i d es:Although T exas law of burg lary of a vehicle cha

ng ed af ter the t ime of Alfa

ro-Gramajo’s 3 conviction, re ducingthe crime from a f elo ny t o a mi sdemea

nor off ense, theparties agreethat the chang e does not be ar on this appe al. 8 § 3 0. 04 B urgl ary of V ehi cl es ( a ) A pe r s on c om m i t s a n of f e ns e i f , w i thoutthe e f

f e c t i ve c ons e ntof th e o w n e r , h e b r e a k s in to o re n te r s av e h ic le o ra n y p a r t o f av e h ic le w ith in te n t to c o m m it a n y f e lo n y o rth e f

t. (b) F or pu rposes of thi s s ec t i on , “ ent er ” m ea ns t o i ntrude: ( 1) a ny pa r tof

the body ; or (2 ) A n y p h ysi cal o b

j ectco n n ect ed w i th th e b o d y. ( c ) A n o f

f e n s e u n d e rth is s e c tio n is af e lo n y o f th e th ir d d e g r e e . T ex. P enal C od e § 30 . 04 (199 3). 3 T o be c onvi c t e d of

bur gl a ry of

ave hi c l e i n vi ol a t i on of T e x. P e na l C ode § 3 0. 04 , A l fa ro-G ra m aj o m usthave had “the i nt entt o com m i tany f el on y or theft . ” S e e i d. T hus , the s t a tut e a l one doe s nott e l l us w he the rA l f a r o- G r a m a

j o ha d the i nt e ntt o c om m i tathe f

torthe i nt e ntt o c om m i ts om e othe rf e l ony . H ow e ve r , the T e xa s c ha r gi ng doc um e ntc l a r i f i e s tha tA l f

a r o- G r a m a

j o “ [ br oke ] i nt o a nd ent er [e d] ” avehi cl e “ w i th the i nt entt o com m i ttheft . ” R . E xh . , G ov . 1; se e T ay l or, 4 9 5 U .S . a t 6 0 2 , 1 1 0 S . C t. a t 2 1 6 0 ; S h e p a r d , 5 4 4 U .S . a t 2 6 , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 1 2 6 3 . T he i s s ue , the r e f

or e , i s w he the rbr e a ki ng i nt o a nd e nt e r i ng ave hi c l e w i th the i nt e nt t o com m i ttheftconst i tut es an aggravat ed fe l on y und er8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (43). B e c a us e T e x. P e na l C ode § 30. 04 doe s noti nc l ude the e l e m e ntof at a ki ng, w e f i nd thati ti s nota theftoffe nse und er8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (43)(G ). S eeAlfaro-Gra majo’s argument that thereis no evidencethat the theft attempted would have 4 be en a fe lony un der Te xas law, a s oppo se d to a mis deme ano r, is without merit, a s th eof fens emus t viewe d in light o f t hede finition

in § 1101 (a)(43 )( G) and (U), and Al fa ro -Gra ma jo doe s n ot dispute that his sentenc e wa s more tha n one ye ar. Se eTa

ylor , 4 95 U. S. at 60 2, 11 0 S. Ct. at 21 60 ; Co llins , 779 F.2d at 1533. 9 J a gge rna uth, 432 F . 3d a t1353. H ow e ve r , A l f a r o- G r a m a

j o’ s c onvi c t i on unde rT e x. P e n a l C o d e § 3 0 .0 4 r e q u ir e d b o th th e in te n t to c o m m it ath e f t a n d th e b r e a k in g in to and ent er i ng of an aut om ob i l e, w hi ch const i tut ed a s ub st ant i al st ep t ow ar d com m i tt i ng a theft . T hu s, A l fa ro-G ra m aj o’ s pri or offe nse qual i fi es as an att em pt ed the f tunde rthe c a t e gor i c a l appr oa c h of T a y l or , w hi c h c om pa r e s the e l e m e nt s of the o f f e n s e o f c o n v ic tio n w ith ag e n e r ic d e f in itio n o f th e o f f e n s e lis te d in § 1101( a ) ( 43) , i n thi s c a s e a n a tt e m pt e d the f tof f e ns e unde r§ 1101( a ) ( 43) ( G ) a nd ( U ) . S e e T a y lo r , 4 9 5 U .S . a t 6 0 2 , 1 1 0 S . C t. a t 2 1 6 0 ; C o llin s , 7 7 9 F .2 d a t 1 5 3 3 . 4 A cc ordi ng l y, i tconst i tut es an aggravat ed fe l on y f or the pu rpose of a§ 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) e n h a n c e m e n t. B . C ri m e of V i ol ence E ve n i f A l f a r o- G r a m a

j o’ s c onvi c t i on f

orbur gl a ry of

ave hi c l e di d not c ons t i tut e a n a tt e m pt e d the f tf orpurpos e s of

§ 1101( a ) ( 43) , the I N A de f i ni t i on of

“ a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony ” a l s o i nc l ude s “ c r i m e [ s ] of vi ol e nc e , ” i nc orpor a t i ng the defi ni t i on fr om 18 U . S . C . § 1 6. 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (43)(F ). In re l evantpart , that s e c t i on de f

i ne s a“ c r i m e of

vi ol e nc e ” a s a ny of

f e ns e “ tha ti s af

e l ony a nd tha t , by10

i t s na tur e , i nvol ve s as ubs t a nt i a l r i s k tha tphy s i c a l f or c e a ga i ns tthe pe r s on or pr ope r ty of

a nothe rm a y be us e d i n the c our s e of c om m i tt i ng the of

f e ns e . ” 18 U . S . C . § 16( b) . A l f

a r o- G r a m a

j o a r gue s tha tbur gl a ry of ave hi c l e i s notac r i m e of vi ol e nc e be c a us e the br oa d c ons truc t i on T e xa s c our t s ha ve gi ve n the of f e ns e m e a ns th a t it o f te n in v o lv e s n o p h y s ic a l f o r c e a g a in s t th e p r o p e r ty o f a n o th e r . T he S up re m e C ou rthas e xp l ai ned thatthe “ subst ant i al ri sk” i n 1 6(b) re fe rs to th e in te n tio n a l u s e o f f o r c e , n o t to th e p o s s ib le e f f e c t o f ap e r s o n ’s c o n d u c t. L eoca l v. A shcr oft , 54 3 U . S . 1, 11 , 12 5 S . C t . 37 7, 38 3 (20 04 ) ( i n the cont extof a D U I off ense ). W e have further c l ar i fi ed thatthe i ss ue of det erm i ni ng w hether a n of f e ns e i s ac r i m e of

vi ol e nc e i s a“ c a t e gor i c a l que s t i on, a nd i s thus notde pe nde nt upon the s pe c i f

i c f a c t s of the c a s e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J ohns on, 399 F . 3d 1297, 1301- 02 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( i nt e rpr e t i ng c r i m e of vi ol e nc e unde r18 U .S .C . 3 1 5 6 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( B ) w h ic h h a s ad e f in itio n s im ila rto th a t in 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 ( b ) ) . O n i t s f a c e , the pl a i n l a ngua ge of 16( b) e nc om pa s s e s T e x. P e na l C ode § 3 0 .0 4 , w h ic h p r o s c r ib e s b r e a k in g in to , o re n te r in g , av e h ic le w ith th e in te n t to co m m i ta th efto r fel o n y. B reak i n g i n t o a v eh i cl e, b y i t s n atu re, i n v o l v es a s u b s ta n tia l r is k th a t p h y s ic a l f o r c e m a y b e u s e d a g a in s t th e p r o p e r ty o f a n o th e r . S e e 18 U . S . C . § 16( b) . A l f a r o- G r a m a

j o’ s a r gum e nttha tthe T e xa s c our t s ha ve c o n s tru e d th e s ta tu te to o b r o a d ly f o rit to b e c o n s id e r e d ac r im e o f v io le n c e is11

unpe r s ua s i ve . T he c a s e s c i t e d by A l f a r o- G r a m a

j o s how tha tT e xa s c our t s ha ve i nt e rpr e t e d the s t a tut e w i thi n the pl a i n m e a ni ng of i t s t e rm s . S e e , e . g. , T hom a s v. S t a t e , 919 S . W . 2d 810, 814 ( T e x. C t . A pp. 1996) ( hol di ng ac a rw a s br oke n i nt o or ent er ed w hen d ef

endantre ac hed i n throu gh the op en w i nd ow of a c ar ). H ow ever , t o q u al i fy u n d er § 1 6 (b ), th e o ffen se n eed n o tal w ays req u i re p h ysi cal fo rce ag ai n st the pr ope r ty of

a nothe r , butr a the rm us tl i e w i thi n ac a t e gory of of f e ns e s the c o m m is s io n o f

w h ic h p r e s e n ts as u b s ta n tia l r is k th a t p h y s ic a l f o r c e w ill b e u s e d . A c c or di ngl y , w e j oi n the F i f th C i r c ui ti n hol di ng tha tT e x. P e na l C ode § 30. 04 desc ri bes acr i m e of vi ol ence for the pu rposes of 18 U . S . C . § 1 6(b). S ee L op ez E l i a s v. R e no, 209 F . 3d 788, 792 ( 5th C i r . 2000) . T hi s , i n turn, m a ke s A l f a r oG ra m aj o’ s burgl ary of avehi cl e a n agg ra vat ed fe l on y f or the pu rpose of § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) . I I I . CONCL US I ON A l fa ro-G ra m aj o app ea l s hi s 37-m on th sent ence , ar gu i ng thatthe di stri ct c our te rr e d i n e nha nc i ng hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on apr i orT e xa s c onvi c t i on f or bu rgl ary of avehi cl e. B ec ause w e c on cl ud e thatthi s pri or offe nse qual i fi es as an aggravat ed fe l on y f

or pu rposes of U . S . S . G § 2 L 1. 2(b), bo th as a n att em pt ed theft offe nse a nd , al tnernat i vel y, as a c ri m e of vi ol ence , w e AF F I RM .