## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 08

- 1970 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J OHN H I GH, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin

. No . 07- CR-91- C- 01

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Chief Ju dge
.
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 5, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 5, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd P OSNERa nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . P E R C UR I AM
. J o h n Hi g h wa s c o n v i c t e d o fp o s s e ss i ng a fire ar m , d es p ite p rior co n v i c tio n s t h at m ad e it unlawfulf orhi m to do s o. 18 U

. S. C. §922(g)(1 ). H e was s e nt e nc e d a s a n a r med c a r e e r cri mi na l, s e e 1 8 U. S

. C. §9 24 ( e) , a fte rthe di strict j udg e f o und tha t he ha d f o ur pr i o r c o n v i c t i o n s f o r s e r i o u s d r u go f f e n s e s o r v i o l en t felo n ies . H is s en te n c e o f 21 2 m on t h s’ im p ris on m en t is bel ow the Guidel in e range f ora perso n w i th hi s cr i m i nal2 N o. 08

- 1970 hi sto ry, but abov e the 10- yea r m axi m um se ntence f or so meo ne who v i o l a t e s § 9 2 2 ( g ) a nd do e s no t qu a l i fy a s an arm ed career crim inal. 18 U

. S. C

. §924(a)(2). H i gh co ntends thatthe evi dence i s i nsuffi ci ent; to t h e c o n t r a r y , i t i s s t r o n g . He a l s o ma i n t a i n s t h a tt he gun shoul d have be en suppress ed as the pr od u c t of an unlawfulse ar ch, bu t th e di str i ct j ud ge ri ghtl y r ej ecte d th is argu m en t. H igh w as li ving w ith his g r a n d m oth er, who co ns en te d t o the o f fi ce r s’ e nt r y . Re l y i ngo n the co ns en t, o f fi cer s ca m e i n b utdi d no t be g i n s ea r ch i ng un tila w arran t had b een i ssu ed

. Th at th e officers secur ed the prem i ses , and preve nted t h e dest ructi on o f evi d en ce, before obta ining a w arran t, d oes not j us tify ex c lu sio n . See , e.g., Seg u r a v . U nited Sta tes , 46 8 U.S

. 79 6 (1984). S en te nc i ngi s th e o nl y s ubs ta nt i ala ppel l at e que st i o n. The dis tr i ct c ou rt r el i ed on f our ofH i gh’ s co nvi cti ons to c on c lude that he i s a n ar m ed car eercr i m i nal : ( 1) poss essio n of co c ain e w i t h int en t t o d ist rib u te ; (2) rec kle ss ly endanger i ng sa f ety ; ( 3) failu re to r epor t t o j ai l f ori m pri so nm en t; a nd ( 4) b attery as a r epe ato f f en der

. Hi g h c o nc e de s tha tthe fi r s to fthe s e c o un t s u nd e r 1 8 U. S

. C. §9 24 ( e) ( 2) ( A)( i i ) because i t i s a “s er i o us dr ugo f f en se ”; he c o n t e s t s th e o t h e r th r e e . T h e f a i l u r e - t o - r e p o r tc r i me ca nno t be c o unt ed, g i ve n C ha m bers v. U n i t e d Sta tes , 12 9 S. Ct. 68 7 ( 2009 )

. The st atus of the ba tte ryco nvi cti on m ay b e d ec id ed inJohns on v. U ni t e d Sta tes , cer t. gr anted, 12 9 S. Ct

. 1315 (2009) (to be argued Oc t. 6, 2009 ). H igh’s ar gum en t is that, bec ause sta te l aw tr eat s ba tte ryas a m isd em ea n or u n les s t h e d e fen d an t is a re c id ivis t, itN o. 08

- 1970 3

ca nno t be a v i o l en t f el o ny f o r fede r alpur po se s. Tha t l i ne of ar gum ent i s cut sh or t b y U nited Sta tes v. R o driq uez , 12 8 S. Ct. 17 83 ( 200 8), wh i ch hol ds that re ci divi st enhancem ents count when cl ass i fyi ng a convi cti on as a m i sdem ea no r o r a fel o ny . W he th er fel o ny b at te r y meet s th e stan d ard s of B ega y v . U nited Sta tes , 128 S. C t. 15 81 (20 08 ), i s th e q u es t i on p os ed inJohns on . W e nee d not a tte m pt to anti ci pate the answer, bec ause H i gh’ s co nvi cti on f or re c kle ss ly en d an ge rin g s afe ty d oe s n ot co u n t, an d it ta k es thr ee c o unt ab l e co nv i ct i o ns t o s upp or t se nt en ci ng as an arm ed ca re er cr im in al. Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Woods , N o. 07

- 3851 ( 7th Ci r. A ug. 5, 20 09 ) , r ea ch es t wo c o nc l us i o ns b ea r i ngon th e tr ea tment o fthe e nda ng er m en t co nv i ct i o n. Woo ds h ol ds, fi rs t, that cou r t s mus t no t l o o k b e y o nd t he s t a t ut o r y i ng r e di e nt s o f a c r i me , u n l e s s th e o f f e n s e i s “ d i v i s ib l e ” i n t o p a r t s , s o me ofwh i ch m eetthe sta nd ar d of§9 24( e) and so m e o fwh i ch d on’t. On ly w he n an offen se is divisible m ay a cou rt exam i ne the char gi ng pape rs a n d plea co l l oquy t o cl as si fy the c o nv i ct i o n. Woods hol ds, se cond, thatas a rul e a n off ense i n w h i ch the m entalst ate i s r eckl ess ne ss do es no t m ee t th e st an dar ds es tabl i sh ed by the Su p re m e C ou rtinBegay . Those concl usi ons contr olher e. H i g h was conv ic te d o fs ec o nd- deg r ee r ec k l es sl y e nd an gering safety, i n violation of W is. Stat. §941

. 30( 2). T his statu te p rovide s: “W hoe ver recklessly end an gers anothe r’ s s afetyi s g uil ty ofa Clas s G fel ony. ” Thi s s tatute i s no t di vi sibl e, as Woods uses that w or d. A nd , gi ve n how Wood s t re ats reck l ess ness off enses , l ack ofdi vi sibi l i ty m ea ns tha t a co nv i ct i o n do es not n ec es sa r i l y s i g ni fy a ny4 N o. 08

- 1970 i ntenti onal, vi ol ent, and agg re ssi ve act of t h e sor t that B egay r e qu i r e s . A pe r s o n who t wi r l s a g un, i nt e nd i ng to show his sk i l l but re ckl ess l y per m i tti ng i t t o fi re , v i ol ate s §9 41

. 30 ( 2) wi th o uti nt en di ngt o s ho o t, e ven i fno o ne i s i nj ur ed. ( Re ck l es sn ess i n W i sc o ns i n l aw mean s th e cre atio n ofan unre aso nabl e a nd subst anti al r i sk ofgr eat bodi l y har m , i f the acto r i s aw ar e of the ri sk. Se e W i s. S tat
. §9 39. 24( 1)

. I t doe s no t r equi re i ntent to harm anyo ne.) Li k ewi se a pe r so n who de l ibe r at el y s hoot s ata pa ss i ng c a r a n d mi s s e s v i o l a t e s th i s l a w. T h e f a c tth a tth e s a me statut e co ve r s bo ths i tu at i o ns , a nd i s no t di vi sibl e, mean s that a co nvi cti on does notes tabl i sh a vi ole n t fel ony, because ( gi venWoods ) the sente nci ng j ud ge is f orbi dd en to l oo k at the charg i ng papers and ple a co l l oquy t o see i n w hi ch w ay a per son vi ol ate d the s tat e s tatute. H i gh di d not o bj ect at sente nci ng to the cl ass i fi cati on o f h i s r e c k l e s s - e n d a n g e r me n tc o n v i c t i o n . But Begay, wh i ch was de ci ded afte r hi s se nt en ci ng, c ha ng ed the rul es , a nd und erthe hol ding ofWoods t h e dist ri ct c ourt ’ s cl ass i fi cati on o fthi s off ense w as pla i n er ro r. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. O l ano , 5 0 7U. S

. 7 2 5 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ( s pe l l i ngo utthe s t a nd a r ds for p lain -er ro r re vie w ). Th e jud gm en t o f c o n v i c tio n is affi r m ed, and th e ca se i s r emande d wi thi ns tr uct i o ns t o i m p o s e a s e n t e n c e n o g r e a t e r t h a n 1 2 0 m o n t h s . We know fr om t h e r eco rd o fthe sta te proce edi ng tha t H i gh fi re d a gun atan occ u p ied car ; he m ay have been tr yi ng t o hi t the o ccupant ( w ho e scaped har m ) o r m ay have been tr yi ng to hi t the ti re s. The dist ric t j u dge i s fre e to consi der those f acts wh en d ecidi ng wh at sente nce to i m pose, se e 1 8 U.S

. C. §366 1, bec au se the e vents that l ed to the re ckl ess endanger m ent c onvi cti on r eflec t whatN o. 08

- 1970 5 kin d of p er so n H igh is a n d h ow d an ge ro u s h e m ay be in th e futur e , b ut t he c o ur t c a nn o t t r e a t hi m a s an a rm ed c ar ee r c rim in al.

8- 5- 09