## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 23 79

__ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d

v. * St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

. Jo se Sal id o- Ro sa s, *

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 18 , 20 11 Fil ed : Dece m

be r 8, 2 01 1

__ __ __ __ __ _
Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , BEAM an d B YE, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _ RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Jo se Sal id o- Ro sa s, an al ie n, pl ed gu il ty to vi ol at in g 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (a) an d (b )( 1) by kn owi ng ly an d un la wfu ll y reen te rin g th e Uni te d St at es aft er be in g de por te d.
Ove r Sal id o- Ro sa s’s ob

jecti on , th e di st ric t co ur t en ha nc ed Sal id o- Ro sa s’s se nt en ce 1

un de r Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne (U.S.S.G.) § 2L1 .2(b )(1 )(E) be c a u s e t he

co ur t de te rm in ed Sal id o- Ro sa s ha d be en co nv ic te d of th ree or m or e m is de m ean or

“ cri m es of vi ol en ce.” The d i s t ric t co ur t th en se nt en ced Sal id o- Ro sa s to 24 m on th s

Th e Hon or ab le Lau rie Sm it h Cam p, who be cam e Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Un i t e d 1 St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka on Decem be r 1, 2 01 1.im

pr is on m en t. Sal id o- Ro sa s ap pe al s, arg ui ng th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y en ha nc ed
hi s s en te nc e. W e aff

irm.

I. BACKGRO UND
A gr an d jury in di ct ed Sal id o- Ro sa s fo r vi ol at in g 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (a) an d (b )(1 ) by kn owi ng ly an d un la wfu ll y reen te rin g th e Uni te d St at es fo ll owi ng hi s co nv ic ti on s fo r “ th ree or m or e m is de m ean or s in vo lv in g dr ug s, cri m es ag ai ns t th e pe rs on or bo th .”
W it ho ut a pl ea ag reem en t, Sal id o- Ro sa s pl ed gu il ty, b ut res erv ed hi s rig ht to arg ue th e en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 L1.2 (b )(1 )(E) d id no t ap pl y

.

The rev is ed m od ifi ed pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (PSR ) as si gn ed Sal id oRo sa s a ba se of

fen se le ve l of 8. The PSR ap pl ie d th e § 2L1 .2(b )(1 )(E) en ha nc em en t be cau se it co un te d Sal id o- Ro sa s’s fo ur as sa ul t an d ba tt ery co nv ic ti on s un de r Om ah a Mu ni ci pa l Co de (OMC) § 20 -6 1 as m is de m ean or “ cri m es of vi ol en ce.” Afte r a two

le ve l red uc ti on fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y , Sal id o -Ro sa s’s to ta l of fen se le ve l

was 10
, an d h is cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y was V, res ul ti ng in an ad vi so ry Gui de li ne

ran ge of 2 1- 27 m on th s i m pr is on m en t.

Th e d is tri ct co ur t acce pt ed th e PSR an d ad op te d th e fact s in th e PSR as it s fact ua l fin di ng s. Ove r Sal id o- Ro sa s’s ob jecti on , th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed Sal id oRo sa s’s co nv ic ti on s un de r OMC § 20 -6 1 were fo r cri m es of vi ol en ce un de r ei th er a
cat eg or ic al or m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch

. W ith re ga rd to th e m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al

ap pr oa ch
, th e di st ric t co ur t st at ed
, “ in lo ok in g at th e fact s of th e de fen da nt ’s of fen se s, whe th er we lo ok at th e po li ce rep or ts or whe th er we lo ok at th e ch arg in g do cu m en ts , it ’s cl ear th at he act ua ll y co m m it te d cri m es of vi ol en ce. He hi t pe op le .” The di st ric t

c o u rt th en se nt en ced Sal id o- Ro sa s to 24 m on th s im pr is on m en t an d th ree y ear s

su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

Sal id o- Ro sa s a p pe al s, as se rti ng th e di st ric t co ur t pr oc ed ur al ly erre d by

co nc lu di ng hi s co nv ic ti on s u nd er OMC § 2 0- 61 were fo r cri m es of v io le nc e.

-2

-II

. DISCUSS IO N

“ W e rev ie w de no vo a d i s t r i c t co ur t’s de ci si on th at a pr io r co nv ic ti on is a
qu al ifyin g of

fen se fo r a se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 2L1 .2.”
Uni te d S ta te s v . Garci a-M ed in a, 49 7 F .3d 87 5, 8 76 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7)

.

U.S.S.G. § 2L1 .2 se ts fo rth th e m ean s of cal cu la ti ng th e o f fen se le ve l fo r de fen da nt s con vi ct ed un de r 28 U.S.C. § 13 26

. Sect io n 2 L1.2 (b )(1 )(E) p ro vi de s fo r

a fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r de fen da nt s wh o h av e b een co nv ic te d o f th ree or m or e
pr io r “ m is de m ean or s th at are cri m es o f v io le nc e or dr ug tra ffi ck in g of fen se s.” App li cat io n Not e 1( B)(i ii ) of § 2L1 .2 de fin es “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” to in cl ud e cert ai n

en um erat ed of

fen se s an d “ an y ot he r of

fen se un de r fed eral
, st at e, or lo cal la w th at ha s

as an el em en t th e us e, at te m pt ed us e, or th reat en ed us e of ph y si cal fo rce aga in st th e
pe rs on of a no th er.”

In de te rm in in g whe th e r a p r i o r co nv ic ti on is fo r a cri m e of vi ol en ce, co ur ts

ge ne ral ly ap pl y a cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch
, lo ok in g at “ th e fact of co n v i c t i on an d th e
st at ut or y de fin it io n of th e pr io r of fen se an d de te rm in [in g] whet he r th e fu ll ran ge of

co nd uc t en co m

pa ss ed by the

. . . st at ut e q ua li fie s to en ha nc e th e se nt en ce.” Uni te d
St at es v. So nn en be rg , 55 6 F.3 d 66 7, 66 9- 70 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (ci ti ng Tay lo r v. Uni te d
St at es , 49 5 U.S. 57 5, 60 0 (1 99 0) ); se e al so Sh ep ard v. Uni te d St at es , 54 4 U.S. 13
, 17 (2 00 5)

.

“ If th e st a t u t e of co nv ic ti on en co m pa ss es bo th co nd uc t th at qu al ifi es fo r a

se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t, an d ot he r co nd u c t t h a t do es no t, th en th e st at ut e is

co ns id ered ‘ove rin cl us iv e,’ an d th e co ur t m us t ap pl y a ‘m o d ifi ed cat eg or ic al

ap pr oa ch ’ to de te rm in e whi ch po rti on of th e st at ut e was th e ba si s fo r a co nv ic ti on .”
Uni te d St at es v. Ben it ez-De Los San to s, 6 5 0 F

. 3d 11 57
, 11 59 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). In
do in g s o, t he co ur t is “ li m it ed to th e te rm s of t he ch arg in g d oc um en t, t he ter m s o f a pl ea ag reem en t or tra ns cri pt of co ll oq uy b et ween jud ge an d de fen da nt in whi ch th e

-3

-fact ua l ba si s fo r th e pl ea was co nf irmed by th e de fen da nt , or to so m e co m pa rab le jud ic ia l re co rd of t hi s i nf or m at io n.” She pa rd , 54 4 U.S. at 27

.

OMC § 20 -6 1 p ro vi de s,

It s ha ll be un la wfu l p ur

po se ly or kn owi ng ly to: (a) St rik e or at te m

pt to st rik e an ot he r pe rs on wit h th e in te nt to cau se bo di ly inju ry ; (b ) Cau se or a tt em

pt to cau se bo di ly inju ry

to an ot he r pe rs on ; (c) Pl ace a no th er p ers on in fear o f im m in en t b od il y ha rm ; o r (d ) Tou ch th e se xu al or in ti m at e pa rts of th e bo dy of an ot he r pe rs on wit ho ut hi s con se nt fo r th e pu rp os e of aro us in g or grat ifyin g th e

se xu al de si re o f ei th er p art y

.

Sal id o- Ro sa s a r g u e s OMC § 20 -6 1 is ov eri nc lu si ve

. Ass um in g it is

ov eri nc lu si ve , th e ch arg in g do cu m en ts sh ow Sal id o- Ro sa s was co nv ic te d of at le as t th ree m is de m ean or cri m es of vi ol en ce. A co nv ic ti on un de r se ct io n 20 -6 1 (a), (b ), or 2 (c) is a cri m e of vi ol en ce. Kno win gl y or pu rp os el y cau si ng or at te mp t i n g t o c a us e bo di ly in jury or m ak in g an ot he r pe rs on fear im m in en t bo di l y h a r m ne ces sa ril y
req ui res us in g, att em

pt in g to us e, or th reat en in g to us e ph y si cal fo rce. See Jo hn so n

v. Uni te d St at es ,

__

_ U.S.

__ _,

__ _,1 30 S. Ct

. 12 65
, 12 71 (d efi ni ng “ ph y si cal fo rce,”

as us ed in 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e), as “ fo rce cap ab le of cau si ng ph y si cal pa in or in jury to

an ot he r pe rs on ”); U.S

. S

. G

. § 2L1 .2, App li cat io n Not e 1( B)(i ii ) (d efi ni ng “ cri m e of
vi ol en ce” t o i nc lu de “ an y ot he r of fen se un de r fed eral , s ta te , or l oc al law t ha t h as as

an el em en t th e us e, at te m pt ed us e, o r t h reat en ed us e of ph y si cal fo rce ag ai ns t th e

To th e ex te nt th e di st ric t co ur t ran afo ul of S h e p ard by co ns id eri ng th e 2 in fo rm at io n in th e po li ce rep or ts , i t was ha rm le ss err or

. Sal id o- Ro sa s co nt en ds th e go ve rn m en t waiv ed th e ha rm le ss erro r arg um en t by no t rai si ng it in th e go ve rn m en t’s br ie f. W e ex erci se ou r di sc ret io n to ov erl oo k th is waiv er be cau se th e reco rd is br ie f

an d cl ear, th e di st ric t co ur t al te rn at iv el y r e f e r e n ces th e po li ce rep or ts whi le al so refe ren ci ng th e ch arg in g do cu m en ts , an y erro r cl earl y is ha rm le ss , an d rev ers al wou ld

“ res ul t in pr ot ract ed , c os tl y , a nd fu ti l e pr oc eed in gs in [th e] d is tri ct co ur t.” Lufk in s v. Lea pl ey , 96 5 F .2d 14 77 , 14 81 (8t h C ir. 1 99 2)

.
-4

-pe rs on of an ot he r”). Sa l i d o

- Ro sa s co nt en ds “ bo di ly ha rm ” do es no t ne ces sa ril y

in vo lv e ph y si cal fo rce be cau se it m ay in cl ud e m erel y of fe n s i v e t o u ch in g. See
Jo hn so n,

__

_ U.S. at

__

_, 13 0 S. Ct

. at 12 68 -7 1, 12 74 (q uo ti ng St at e v. Hearn s, 96 1
So .2d 21 1, 21 8 (Fl a. 20 07 ) (h ol di ng “ an y in te nt io na l ph y si cal co nt act , ‘no m at te r ho w sl ig ht ’” do es no t ne ces sa ril y in vo lv e ph y si cal fo rce) ; se e al so Ja m es v. Uni te d St at es , 55 0 U.S. 19 2, 20 8 (2 00 7) (ex pl ai ni ng “ th e pr op er in qu iry is whe th er th e co nd uc t

en co m pa ss ed by th e el em en ts of th e of fen se , in th e or di na ry cas e, [in vo lv es th e us e,
at te m pt ed us e, or th reat en ed us e of ph y si cal fo rce ag ai ns t th e pe rs on of an ot he r]. One

can al way s hypo th es iz e un us ua l cas es in whi ch ev e n a pr ot ot y pi cal ly v io le nt cri m e

m ig ht no t pr es en t a ge nu in e ris k of in jury

. . . .”). W e reject Sal id o- Ro sa s’s arg um en t be cau se th e refe ren ces to “ bo di ly in jury” an d “ bo di ly ha rm ” in OMC § 20 -6 1( a)-( c) pl ace th es e su bs ect io ns sq ua rel y wit h i n J o h ns on ’s de fin it io n of of fen se s in vo lv in g ph y si cal for ce.

The ch arg in g do cu m en ts m ak e cl ear Sal id o- Ro sa s was co nv ic te d un de r OMC § 20 -6 1( a), (b ), or (c). Sal id o- Ro sa s in di cat es it is un cl ear whe th er he was co nv ic te d

un de r su bs ect io n (a), (b ), or (c), b ut id en ti fy in g t he ex act su bs ect io ns of co nv ic ti on do es no t affe ct ou r an al y si s: co nv ic ti on un de r an y of th os e su bs ect io ns wou ld be a

co nv ic ti on fo r a c r im e of vi ol en ce. The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y ap pl ie d th e

en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 L1.2 (b )(1 )(E).

II I. CONCLUSI ON
W e aff irm.

__

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

-5

-