# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 31 39

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

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.

Trev on Sy

ke s

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 Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 25 , 20 15
Fil ed : J an ua ry

4, 2 01 6

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Trev on Sy ke s pl ed gu il ty to be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of nu m ero us fir earm s

in vi ol at io n of 18 U

. S

. C

. § 92 2( g) (1 ). Fi nd in g th at Sy ke s ha d co m m it te d th ree

pr ed ic a t e o f

f e ns es qu al ifyin g as vi ol en t fel on ie s un de r § 92 4( e), th e di st ric t co ur t 1

The Hon or ab le Aud rey G. Fl ei ss ig

, Uni te d St at e s D i s t ric t Ju dg e fo r th e 1

East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.se nt en ced Sy ke s to 18 0 m on th s in pr is on an d a th ree- y ear te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

Sy ke s ap pe al s hi s se nt en ce, rai si ng is su es rel at ed to th e na tu re of hi s pr ed ic at e

of fen se s co u p l e d w i t h hi s ag e at th e ti m e of th e co m m is si on of th es e of

fen se s. W e

affi rm

.

I.

On May 23

, 20 13

, Sy ke s an d Ch arl es Sacu s arri ve d at a ta tt oo pa rl o r i n St

. Lou is

, Mi ss ou ri. Unb ek no wns t to Sy ke s an d Sacu s, th e pr op rie to rs of th e t a t to o

pa rlo r w e re un de rco ve r ag en ts wit h th e Bu reau of Alco ho l, Tob acco , Fi rear m s an d
Exp lo si ve s (“ ATF”). As a co ve r, th e ag en ts po se d as co n v i c t e d fel on s who were
bu y in g gu ns fo r un la wfu l us e by a n o u tl aw m ot or cy cl e ga ng

. W hi le at th e ta tt oo

pa rlo r, Sy ke s ha nd ed a Hi-P oi nt .45 cal ib e r s e mi-au to m at ic pi st ol to Sacu s, whi ch

Sacu s so ld to th e un de rco ve r ag en ts fo r $5 00

. Sy ke s ad m it te d to th e un de rco ve r

ag en ts th at he ha d rece nt ly be en rel eas ed fro m pr is on , th e pi st ol be lo ng ed to hi m , an d

he ha d m or e g un s fo r sa le

.

Ove r th e fo ll owi ng week s, Sy ke s so ld fiv e fir earm s, two of whi ch were st ol en ,
to th e un de rco ve r ag en ts

. All of th e tra ns act io ns were reco rd ed wit h au di o an d vi de o.

ATF ex pe rts ex am in ed th e fir earm s an d de te rm in ed th at th ey fu nc ti on ed as de si gn ed

an d wer e m an uf

act ur ed ou ts id e th e st at e o f Mi ss ou ri.

A fed eral gr an d jury in di ct ed Sy ke s fo r be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of nu m ero us

fir earm s fro m May 23

, 20 13 to Ju ne 6, 20 13

, in vi ol at io n of 1 8 U

. S

. C § 92 2( g) (1 ).
Sy ke s en te red a pl ea ag reem en t an d pl ed gu il ty to th e ch arg e ag ai ns t hi m

. The Uni te d

St at es Pro ba ti on Offi ce (“ Pro ba ti on ”) is su ed a pr es en te n c e i n ve st ig at io n rep or t ( “PSR”), whi ch st at ed th at Sy ke s ha d th ree pr io r co nv ic ti on s th at were cri m e s o f

vi ol en ce an d vi ol en t fel on ie s. Sp eci fic al ly, cert ifi ed co ur t reco rd s es ta bl is h ed th at Sy ke s pr ev io us ly was co nv ic te d of : (1 ) two co un ts of Bu rg la ry Seco nd Deg ree in St

. Lou is Co un ty in 20 10 ; (2 ) Bu rg la ry Seco nd Deg ree an d Fel on y St eal in g in St

. Lou is

-2

-Co un ty in 20 10 ; (3 ) th ree co un ts of Po ss es si on of a Co nt ro ll ed Su bs ta nc e in St

. Lou is

Co un ty in 20 10 ; an d (4 ) Bu rg la ry Fi rs t Deg ree in St

. Lou is Ci ty in 20 10

. Each of

th es e pr io r co nv ic ti on s is a fel on y pu ni sh ab le by a te rm of im pr is on m en t ex ceed in g

on e y e a r

. A s a res ul t of Sy ke s ha vi ng th ree vi ol en t fel on y co nv ic ti on s an d on e

se rio us dr ug of

fen se , th e PSR cl as si fie d hi m as an Arm ed Care er Cri m in al su bjec t to

a m an da to ry m in im

um se nt en ce of 18 0 m on th s pu rs ua nt to th e Arm ed Care er
Cri m in al Act (“ ACCA”) , 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e).

Sy ke s ob jecte d to hi s cl as si fic at io n as an Arm ed Care er Cri m in al

, as se rti ng th at

be cau se th e se co nd -d eg ree bu rg la rie s were of un oc cu pi ed co m m erci al bu il di ng s an d

were no nv io le nt

, an d in vi ew of hi s ag e at th e ti m e of th e co m m is si on of th e
bu rg la rie s, th e of

fen se s sh ou ld no t co un t as pr ed ic at e co nv ic ti on s un de r th e ACCA.

The di st ric t co ur t reject ed th es e arg um en ts

, no ti ng th at Sy ke s was cert ifi ed as an ad ul t

fo r each of hi s pr io r c o n vi ct io ns an d th e two of fen se s to whi ch Sy ke s ob jecte d

qu al ifi ed as v io le nt fel on ie s u nd er Eig ht h C irc ui t l aw.

II.

On ap pe al

, Sy ke s fir st arg ue s th at hi s two pr io r co nv ic ti on s fo r se co nd -d eg ree
bu rg la ry do no t qu al ify as vi ol en t felo ni es for th e pu rp os es of § 92 4( e), becau se th e

Mi ss ou ri se co nd -d eg ree bu rg la ry st at ut e is ov erb ro ad an d Sy ke s bu rg le d un oc cu pi ed

co m m erci al bu il di ng s. Sec on d, Sykes ass ert s th at he in cu rred th e p rio r co nv ic ti on s
whe n h e was un de r th e ag e of 18 , and th eref

or e u si ng th em

to en ha nc e h is sen te nc e

to a m an da to ry m in im

um of fif te en y ears co ns ti tu te s cru el an d un us ua l pu ni sh m en t

un de r th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. We add res s ea ch arg um en t i n t ur n.

A.

Fi rs t, Sy ke s co n t e n d s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in fin di ng th at hi s pr io r

se co nd -d eg ree bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s qu al ify as vi ol en t fel on ie s fo r pu rp os es of

-3

-§ 9 2 4 ( e ) be cau se Sy ke s bu rg le d un oc cu pi ed co m m erci al bu il di ng s. W e rev ie w de

no vo whe th er a pr io r co nv ic ti on co ns ti tu t e s a vi ol en t fel on y fo r th e pu rp os es of
§ 92 4( e). U n i t e d St at es v. Bo az, 55 8 F.3 d 80 0, 80 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d

St at es v. Co m st oc k, 53 1 F.3 d 66 7, 67 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ), cert . den ie d, 5 55 U.S. 10 20
(2 00 8) ). To de te rm in e whe t h e r a p a s t co nv ic ti on qu al ifi es as a vi ol en t fel on y , we

ap pl y th e “ cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch ,” un de r whi ch we “ lo ok on ly to th e fact of co nv ic ti on

an d t he st at ut or y

de fin it io n o f th e p rio r of fen se .” Tay lo r v. Un it ed St at es , 49 5 U.S.

57 5, 60 2 (1 99 0)

. Bu rg la ry is on e of th e en um erat ed of fen se s un de r § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (ii ).

An of fen se co ns ti tu te s “ bu rg la ry ” un de r § 92 4( e) if it co nt ai ns th e el e men t s o f

“ ge ne ric bu rg la ry ,” whi ch is de fin ed as “ un la wfu l or un pr iv il eg ed en try in to

, or

rem ai ni ng in , a bu il di ng or o th er s tru ct ur e, wit h i nt en t t o co m m it a cri m e.” Tay lo r,

49 5 U.S. at 59 8. Any en ha nc ed se nt en ce u n d e r § 9 2 4 ( e ) fo r a pr io r bu rg la ry

co n v i c ti on m

us t “ res t on th e sh owi ng th at th e co nv ic ti on ‘neces sa ril y ’

in vo lv ed

. . . fact s eq ua ti ng to ge ne ric bu rg la ry .” Sh ep ard v. Uni te d St at es , 54 4 U.S.

13 , 24 (20 05 ).

U nde r Mi ss ou ri la w, a pe rs on co m m it s se co nd -d eg ree bu rg la ry whe n “ he or she

kn owi ng ly en te rs un la wfu ll y or kn owi n g l y rem ai ns un la wfu ll y in a bu il di ng or

in ha bi ta bl e st ru ct ur e fo r th e pu rp os e of co m m it ti ng a cri m e th erei n.” Mo

. Ann

. St at

. § 56 9.1 70

. Thi s de fin it io n la rg el y co nf or m s to t h e e l e m en ts of a ge ne ric bu rg la ry

pr om ul ga te d in Tay lo r: (i) un la wfu l en try or rem ai ni ng in (ii ) a bu il di ng or st ru ct ur e (ii i) wit h th e in te nt to co m m it a cri m e. See Tay lo r, 46 8 U.S. at 57 5. Sy ke s, ho wev er,

arg ue s th at th e Mi ss ou ri de fin it io n of an “ in ha bi ta bl e st ru ct ur e” is ov erb ro ad be cau se

it in cl ud es a “ sh ip

, tra il er, sl eep in g car, ai rp la ne , or o t h e r v eh ic le or st ru ct ur e.”
§ 5 6 9

. 01 0( 2)

. Nev ert he le ss , Sy ke s di d no t ob ject to th e PSR’s fact ua l reci ta ti on s

pr ov id in g th at he bu rg le d co m m erci al bu il di ng s, an d hi s ge ne ral ob jecti on to th e PSR

c la ss ifyin g hi m as a care er of fen de r is in su ffi ci en t to tri gg er th e go ve rn m e n t ’s

ob li ga ti on to i nt ro du ce ev id en ce co nf irming th at Sy ke s was co nv ic te d fo r bu rg li ng
bu il di ng s. See Uni te d St at es v. St y m ie st

, 58 1 F.3 d 75 9, 76 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ); Uni te d

St at es v. Rel ifo rd

, 47 1 F.3 d 91 3, 91 6 (8 th C ir. 20 06 ) (“ [I]f th e de fen da nt fai ls to

-4

-ob

ject t o fa ct st at em en ts in th e [PSR ] es ta bl is hi ng th at a pr io r of fen se was a vi ol en t

fel on y co nv ic ti on , th e go ve rn m en t ne ed no t in tro du ce at se nt en ci ng th e do cu m en ta ry

ev id en ce t ha t Taylor an d S he pa rd ot he rwis e req ui re.”)

.

Sy ke s al so arg ue s th at hi s pr io r se co nd -d eg r e e b u rg la ry co nv ic ti on s are no t

vi ol en t fel on ie s fo r pu rp os es of th e ACCA be cau s e t h e y w ere of un oc cu pi ed

co m m erci al bu il di ng s an d di d no t po se “ a se rio us po te nt ia l ris k of ph y si cal in jury to

an ot he r.” Sy ke s dr aws on th e la ng ua ge of th e res id ua l cl au se of § 92 4( e). In th e ti m e
si nc e Sy ke s br ie fed hi s arg um en t, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld t h a t i mpo si ng an

in crea se d se nt en ce un de r th e res id ua l cl au se of § 92 4( e) is un co ns ti tu ti on al

. Jo hn so n

v. Uni te d St at es , 13 5 S.Ct

. 25 51

, 25 63 (2 01 5)

. Nev ert he le ss , th e Co ur t no te d th at it s

“ de ci si on do es no t cal l in to qu es ti on th e ap pl ic at io n of th e Act to th e fo ur en um erat ed

of fen se s, or th e rem ai nd er of th e Act’s de fin it io n of a vi ol en t fel on y .” Id

. The refo re,
be cau se bu rg la ry is an en um erat ed of fen se un de r § 92 4( e)(i i), th e im po si ti on of an

in crea se d se nt en ce ne ed no t res t on whe th er Sy ke s’s co nd u c t po se d “ a se rio us

po te nt ia l ris k of ph y si cal in jury to an ot he r.” In de ed

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s reject ed

th e no ti on th at “ Co ng res s m ean t to in cl ud e as pr ed ic at e of fen s e s on ly a su bc la ss of

bu rg la rie s who se el em en ts in cl ud e ‘con du ct th at pr es en ts a se rio us r i s k o f p hysic al

in jury to an ot he r’ o v e r an d ab ov e th e ris k in he ren t in or di na ry bu rg la rie s.” Tay lo r

49 5 U.S. a t 59 7. “ [I]f t hi s were Co ng res s’ i nt en t, th ere wou ld ha ve be en no reas on

to ad d th e wor d ‘bur gl ary’ to § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (ii ), si nc e th at pr ov is io n al read y in cl ud es

an y c r i me th at ‘inv ol ve s co nd uc t th at pr es en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ris k of ph y si cal

in jury to an ot he r.’” Id

. The Co ur t reas on ed th at Co ng res s m os t li ke ly tho ug ht th at

cert ai n cat eg or ie s of pr op ert y cri m es typic al ly pr es en t a ris k of in jury to pe rs on s an d

are so of te n co m m it te d by care er cri m in al s th at th ey s h o u l d be en um erat ed in th e

en ha nc em en t s ta tu te . Id.

Acco rd in gl y , we co nc lu de th at Sy ke s’s pr io r se co nd -d e g r e e bu rg la ry

co nv ic ti on s fit wit hi n th e ge ne ric de fin it io n of “ bu rg la ry ” fo r pu rp os es of th e ACCA

an d e ach co ns ti tu te s a v io le nt fel on y un de r § 9 24 (e).

-5

-B.

Seco nd , S y ke s co nt en ds th at th e se nt en ce en ha nc e ment co ns ti tu te s cru el an d

un us ua l pu ni sh m en t u nd er th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t be cau se he was a juv en il e whe n
he in cu rred th e pr io r co nv ic ti on s. W e rev ie w co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng es to a se nt en ce

de no vo . Uni te d S ta te s v . Bowe rs , 63 8 F .3d 61 6, 6 20 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

Sy ke s ci te s th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s de ci si on s in Ro pe r v. Si m m on s, 54 3 U.S. 55 1
(2 00 5) an d Grah am v. Fl or id a, 56 0 U.S. 48 (2 01 0) in su pp or t of hi s co nt en ti on

. W e

ha ve reject ed th e arg um en t th at in li gh t of Ro pe r, ap pl ic at i o n o f t h e ACCA

en ha nc em en t to a se nt en ce vi ol at es t h e Ei g ht h Am en dm en t whe n it res ul ts in an

in crea se d se nt en ce ba se d on cri m es co m m it t e d a s a juv en il e. See Uni te d St at es v.

Jo ne s, 57 4 F.3 d 54 6, 55 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). “ Ro pe r do es no t de al sp eci fic al ly–o r ev en

ta ng en ti al ly–wit h se nt en ce en ha nc em en t. It is on e th in g to pr oh ib it cap it al

pu ni sh m en t fo r th os e u n d e r t h e ag e of ei gh te en , bu t an en ti rel y di ffer en t th in g to

pr oh ib it co ns id erat io n of pr io r y ou th fu l of fen se s whe n se nt en ci ng cri m in al s who

co n t i n u e t h ei r il le ga l act iv it y in to ad ul th oo d.” Id . ( qu ot in g Uni te d St at es v. W il ks

, 46 4 F.3 d 12 40

, 12 43 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 )). Lik ewis e, Grah am do es no t rem ot el y co nc ern

se nt en ce en ha nc em en t un de r th e ACCA fo r cri m es co m m it te d as a juv en il e. Grah am
he ld th at t he Eig ht h Am en dm en t pr oh ib it s th e im po si ti on of a li fe wit ho ut pa ro le

se nt en ce on a juv en il e of

fen de r who di d no t co m

m it ho m ic id e. 56 0 U.S. at 82

. Sy ke s
is no t fa c i n g a li fe se nt en ce, bu t a fif te en -y ear se nt en ce un de r § 92 4( e). Neit he r

Ro pe r no r Grah am pr oh ib it se nt en ce en ha nc em en t ba se d on co nv ic ti on s in cu rred as a juv en il e.

Fu rthe rm or e, we ha ve he ld th at “ th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t do es not pr ohi bit usi ng

a n a d u lt co nv ic ti on ba se d on juv en il e co nd uc t to in crea se a se nt en ce un de r th e

ACCA.” Uni te d S t a t e s v

. Jo ne s, 57 4 F.3 d 54 6, 55 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Sy ke s was

cert ifi ed as an ad ul t fo r ea c h of hi s pr io r se co nd -d eg ree bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s.

-6

-Acco rd in gl y , Sy ke s’s se nt en ce en ha nc em en t un de r § 92 4( e) fo r cri m es he co m m it te d

as a juv en il e do es no t vi ol at e th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t, an d th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t

err i n e nh an ci ng Sy ke s’s s en te nc e.

III.

W e ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y cl as si fie d each o f Sy ke s’s Mi ss ou ri

se co nd -d eg ree bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s as a vi ol en t fel on y fo r th e pu rp os e of en ha nc in g

hi s fed eral se nt en ce pu rs ua nt to th e ACCA. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm Sy ke s’s se nte nce.

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

-7

-