P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40801 S u m m ary C al en da r UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. K E L LYA R KA D IE , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U S D C N o . 2 :02 -C R -4 6 -2 B ef ore G A R W O O D , SM ITH an d S T E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * K e llyA r k a d ie a p p e a ls fr o m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t r e v o k in gh is s u p e rv is e dre le a s e a n ds e n te n c in gh im to 2 4 m o n th s o f im p r is o n m e n t. A r k a d ie c o n t e n d s t h a th i s T e x a s c o n v i c t i o n o f r e t a l i a t i o n wa s n o ta c o n v i c t i o n o f a“ c r i me of vi ol en ce” a n d, theref ore, d i d n otcon st i t u t e a G rade Avi ol ati on f or th e pu rpose o f de t e r m i ni ng hi s a dv i s o r y gui de l i ne s e nt e nc i ng r ang e upo n r e vo c at i o n. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

22, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40801

2 B ecau se A rkad i e di d n otrai se t h i s i ssue i n t h e di st ri ctcourt , our revi ew is fo rp la in e r r o r . Se eUni t e d St at e s v . Tho mps o n, 454 F . 3d459 , 464 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ). T o s h o w p la in e r r o r , th e a p p e lla n t m u s t s h o w afo r fe ite de r r o rth a t is c le a ro ro b v io u s a n dth a t a ffe c ts h is s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts . P u cket tv. Un i t ed S t ate s, 129 S. C t . 142 3, 142 9 ( 200 9) . If t h e ap pel l an tm ak es s u ch a sh ow i n g, t h i s c ou rt h as t h e di scr et i on t o corr ect t h e error bu t on l y i f i tser i ou sly af fect s t h e fai rness, in te g r ity , o rp u b licre p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . I d. O urpr e c e de nta nd the r e l e va ntpo li cy st at e m e nti ndi c at e t hatt he i s s ue w h e th e r a v iola to r h a s c o m m itted a“cr im e of v iol e n c e ” forp u rp o se s o f a s upe rvi s e d r e l e as e r e vo c at i o n i s ba s e d o n t he de fe nda nt ’ s ac t ual c o nduc t . U . S. S ENT ENC I NGG UIDELI NES M ANUAL§ 7 B 1 .1 , p .s ., c o m m e n t. (n .1 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. D om i ngu ez , 4 7 9 F .3 d 3 4 8 , 3 4 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. B arber, N o. 92- 7737, 1993 W L 241855 ( 5t h C i r . June 24, 1993) (unp ubl i she d pr ec ede nt i al o p in ion ). T h e t e r m in c lu d e s a n yo ffe n s e u n d e rs ta te o rfe d e r a l la w th a t is pu n i sha bl e by m ore th an a year i n pri son an d ( 1) ha s as an el em en tt h e use, att em pted u se, or t h reat en ed u se of ph ysi calf

orce aga i n stt h e person of an ot h er or( 2) i s burgl ar y o f

a dw ell i n g, a rson . . . orother w i sei nvolves c onductt hat pr e s e nt s a se r i o us pot e nt i alri s k of phys i c ali nj ur y t o a no t he r . U . S. S ENT ENC I NG G UIDELI NES M ANUAL § 4B 1. 2( a) ( 1) & (2). T h e fa c t s u n d e r ly in gA r k a d ie ’s ret al i ati on convi ct i on ref l ect th a the threatenedt o use ph ysi calf orce aga i n st an ot h er i n divi du alan d to bu rn dow n t h at i n divi du al ’ s pl ace of bu si n ess. A r ka di e ’ s c o nduc ta r guably s at i s f i e s t he c r i t e r i a t o b e c o ns i de r e d ac r i m e of vi ol en ce un der t h i s c ou rt ’ s ca selaw add ress i n g w h at c on st i t u t es a c ri m e of vi ol enc e i n an i ni t i als ent enc i ng pr oc ee di ng. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Moh r, 554 F. 3d 6 0 4 , 6 0 9

– 1 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), pet i t i on force rt . f i led (M a r. 3 1 , 2 0 0 9 ) (N o . 0 8 -9 5 7 8 ). W e ne e d no t , ho w e ve r , de c i de w h et h e rAr ka di e ’ s c o nduc tc o ns t i t ut e d a c r im e o f v io le n c e . T o s h o w th a t a n e r r o ra ffe c te dh is s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts , A r k a d ie m usts how “ a r eas onabl e p rob a b i l i t y” t hat , butf ort he e r r or , he w oul d have r e c e iv e dad iffe r e n t s e n te n c e . Un i t ed Stat es v. G arza-Lop ez , 410 F. 3d 268, 275N o. 08- 40801

3 ( 5th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). A rkad i e does not argue that he w ou l d h ave receiveda l esser sentence absen tt h e err or. N or does he poi n tt o an ythi n g i n t h e rec ord d e m o n s tr a tin gth a t a re a s o n a b le p r o b a b ilitye x is ts t h a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w o u ld h ave i m poseda l ow er s en t en ce had itdeter m i n ed that t h e ret al i ati on convi ct i on w as a G r ade B vi ol at i on. Rathe r , iti s evi dentf r om t he r ec or d t hatt he c our tw as aw are of

t h e st atutor y m axim u m i m pri sonm en t t erm of 24 m on t h s. M oreover, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tr ej e c t e d Ar ka di e ’ s r e que s tt o b e s e nt e nc e d t o t i m e s e rve d, c om m ent i ng t hatA r kadi e’ s c r i m i nal hi st or y i ncl uded vi ol ent of fens es and t hat t h e revocat i on proceedin gitsel f arose du e t o vi ol en tcondu ct . A rkad i e ha s not s ho w n a ny r e as o nab l e pr o babil i t y t hatt he di s t r i c tco ur tw o ul d ha vei m po s e d a l ess er se nt enc e e ven if t he appl i c abl e po l i c y s t at em ents ent enc i ng r ange recom m en ded a l ow er sentence, an d he t h u s h as fai l ed t o show t h a t a n yerror a ffe c te dh is s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts . S ee i d. AF F I RMED.