## 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. 10

- 1479 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D EANDRE R. H A MP T ON, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 08- CR-20063

—Mi ch ael P . M cC us key, Judge .
A RGUED M AR CH 28, 2011

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 27, 2012

Befo re K ANN E , S YKES, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . S Y K ES, Cir cu i tJudg e . Deandre H am pton was ar re ste d f o r unl awful l y p oss es singa fi r ea r m a s a fel o n a fte r he disc ar ded a l oaded handgun d uri ng a f oo t chas e with pol i ce in Ka nk a k e e , I l l i no i s . Atthe j a i l Ha mpt o n s i g ne d a M i r anda waivera nd b eg ant o g i ve a s ta te m en t, b ut soon i nv oked his ri gh t to cou ns el. T he K an kakee officers hal ted the i nter vi ew and sum m oned a guar d to tak e H am p to n ba c k t o h is c e l l . H am p to n th en ch an ge d h is2 N o. 10

- 1479

m i nd and a sk ed to s pea kwi ththe o ffi ce r s wi th

out coun se l p re sent. The r esto fthe i nter vi ew was a ud i o r e c o r de d. Aft e r n e w M i r anda w ar n in gs , th e o ffice rs ag ain as k ed Ham pto n i fhe w an te d a l awy er . H e r epl i ed, “ Ye ah, I do , b uty o u . . . . ” Onh e a r i ngthi s the o ffi c e r s r e minded h im th at th ey c o u l d n ’ t ta lk if h e w as as kin g for co u n se l. A ftera l ong p ause, H am pton co nti nued the conve rs ati o n, he m m i ng for a few mi nut es mor e be f o r e sa y i ng unam bi guousl y that he w anted to co nti nue w i thout a l aw yer . H e th en g av e a st ate m ent denyi ng the gun was hi s, sa yi n g it b elo nged to an a cquai ntance w ho was at the scene of the encounter w i th the pol i ce. H am p ton ad m itted that he h eld th e gun f or a m om en t before th e po l i ce a r r i ve d, b uts ai d he g av e i t ba ck to th e ac qua i ntance and did not tos s i t duri ng the f oo t cha se. H am pton was char ged with one count o fposs ess i on ofa fi re ar m by a fe l on a nd as an a rm ed car eercr i m i nal un d er t h e A rm ed Ca reer Crim inal A ct (“A C C A ”). See 18 U .S.C . §§ 9 22 (g)(1 ), 924 (e). H e m o v e d to su p p re ss h is custo dialst ate m ent, cl ai m i ng th at the o ffi cer s v i ol ate d M i r anda a nd Edwards b y que st i o ni nghi m a fte r he i n v o ke d h is rig h t t o c ou n se l. Se eEdward s v. Ar izona , 45 1 U .S. 47 7, 48 4-8 5 (1 98 1); M i r anda v. Ariz o na , 384 U
. S. 436, 4 71

- 72 ( 19 66 )
. The di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed th e m o ti o n, ho l di ngthat ( 1) the o ffi ce r s appr o pr i at el y s to pped th e i nt er vi ew whe n Hampt on a sk ed f o r a n a tt o r ne y ; a nd (2) H am p to n h i m se lf rein itia te d th e in te rv iew an d d id n ot t h er ea fte r u n eq u ivo c ally inv ok e h is rig h t t o c ou n se l. H am p ton ’s statem en t w as ad m itted at tri al, and a j ury f ound him gui l ty.N o. 10

- 1479 3 A t s entenci ng the di str i c t courtdesi gnate d H am pton as an ar m ed car eercr i m i nal b ased on thr ee pri or fel ony convi cti ons, inc l ud i ng an I l l i noi s a ggr avat ed batt er y c onvi cti on f orm aki ng “ins ult i ng o r provo ki ng” ph y s i c a l c o n t a c t wi th a p e a c e o ffi c e r . T h i s t r i g g e r e d a st at u t o r y m i n im u m of 15 ye ar s, see id. § 9 24( e) , a gui delin es offe n se lev el o f33 , see U. S
. S
. G. § 4 B1. 4(b) ( 3) ( B) , a nd an advi sor y guidel i nes r ange of23 5 t o 293 m onths. Th e di s t r i c tc o u r ts e t t l e d o n 2 5 2 mo n th s . H a mp t o n a ppeal ed, chal l engi ng the d eni alo fhi s s up press i on m ot ion an d h is d es ign at ion as an arm ed ca re er cr im in al. W e affi r m the c o nv i ct i o n b utv ac at e th e sen te nc e an d re m and for r ese ntenci ng. The Kankakee o ffi cer s di d not vi ol ate the M ira nd a /E dw a rds rule. The yho no r ed H ampton ’s in itialr equest f orco unsel and i m m edi ate l y s topped qu estioning him

. H am p ton him self reiniti ated the intervi ew , a nd the r ec o r d s uppo r ts the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s co ncl us i o n tha t he di d no t th er ea fte r make a n un ambi g uo us re quest for c ounselas r equi re d by D a vis v . U nited Sta tes , 5 1 2 U. S
. 4 5 2 , 4 5 9 ( 1 9 9 4 )
. Bu tHa mpt o n do e s not q u a l i fy a s a n a r me d c a r e e r c r i mi n a l

. T h e I l l i n o i s c r i me ofm aki ng i nsul ti ng o r provo ki ng physi cal c ontact with a p e a c e o ffi c e r i s n o ta v i o l e n tfe l o n y u n d e r th e AC C A.

I . B a c kg r o und Shortly after m idn ight on Sep tem ber 25, 2008, D ean d re H am p ton w as stan d in g w ith oth ers out side a friend ’s apart m ent b uil ding on W i l dw oo d A venue i n K ankak ee whe n t wo p o l i c e p a t r o l c a r s dr o v e b y . As the s qu a ds appr o ac he d, Ham pto n b eg ant o r un int o the a par tment4 N o. 10

- 1479 b u ild in g. T w o offic er s g av e c h a s e a n d follow ed h im in to th e b u ild in g; th e a p ar tm en t m an ag er h ad p re vio u sly g i ve n the m a k ey an d pe r m i ss i o n t o e nt erthe b ui l di ng to p atrol the com m on area s. O nc e inside , t he officers sa w H ampton run ni ngup a fl i g hto fs ta i r s. One o fthe o ffi ce r s ra n a fte r hi m ; a s th e o ffi ce r r ea ch ed th e to p o fthe fi r stfl i g ht, he heard a thud o n the s ec o nd- fl o o r l an di ng ab o ve hi m a s i fs o m ethi nghe av y w as dr o pped o n the fl oo r. H am pton fl ed dow n a s eco nd st air c ase and ra n i nto th e ot h er offi cer, wh o i nter cepted and tr i ed to st op h i m. Ha mpt o n re si st e d , a s c u ffl e e n s u e d , a n d th e t wo tu mbl e d d o wn the s t a i r s . I n the me a nt i me the fi rs t offi cerr etr i eve d a l oaded se m i auto m atic hand gun fro m th e se co nd- fl o o r l an di ngi n the pa tho fHam pton’s fl i g ht

. Af te r Ham pto n was s ubdu ed an d ha ndcu ffed, the offi cer s too k hi m to the hospi talf ortr eat m ent o fm i nor inj u rie s s u st ain ed in t h e t u ss le a n d th en to th e c ou n ty j ail. At the j ai l S er g ea ntPeter Ni ch o l o s an d Li eu te na nt Ro bin Pa ss wat ers o ug htt o que st i o n Hampto n abo utthe g u n, fi r s tg i v i n gh i m M i r a n d a w ar n i ngs. H am pton ack no wl e dg e d tha th e u nd e r s t o o d h i s r i g ht s , s i g ne d a w aiv er , an d ag re ed to ta lk to th e o ffice r s , b u t q u ick ly ch an g ed hi s m i nd a nd r eque st ed a l awy er . The o ffi cers im m ed iately ha lted th e interview , a nd N icholos l eft th e room to sum m on a correc tional offi cer to escort Ha mpt o n b a c kt o h i s j a i l c e l l

. Whe n the g ua r d a r r i v e d, H am p to n ch an ge d h is m in d ag ain an d as ke d t o ta lk w i th the offi cer s w i thout an att or ney prese nt. A t th is p oint N icholos an d P a ssw ater d ecid ed to aud iorecord th e r e ma i n d e r o fth e i n t e r v i e w.N o. 10

- 1479 5

The acco u nt th atf ol l ows i s bas ed o n the t ra ns c ri ptofthe 1 i nt er vi ew an d o ur r evi ew ofthe audi or ec or di ng, both o f w hich are part o f t he re cord on app eal

. Un le ss i nd ic ated othe rwi s e, the quot es ar e pre s en t ed a s the y a ppea r i n the tran scrip t, w ith o rig ina l pu nc tu atio n, inclu d ing ellipses. T h e i n t e r v i e w r e s u me d o n t a p e . Aft e r n e w M i r anda 1 w ar ni ngs, the f ol l owing exchange too k pl ace: Passwater : A l ri ght. Earl i er, yo u to l d us yo u

—

you

— y o u wer e g o nna ta l kabo utg et ting a l a wy e r o r wh a t e v e r . . . d o y o u wa nt a l aw yeratthi s t i m e? H am p to n : Y ea h, Id o, bu t y ou . . . P a s s wa t e r : T h e n Ic a n ’ tt a l kt o y o u, al r i g h t ? We

can ’t

— I can’ t t ake a sta tem ent fro m yo u ifyou w an t a l aw yer. Fi ve seco nd s o fsi l ence f ol l owed

. Then H am pton spok e: H ampto n: Buts ee , I ’m a sk i n’ y o u i s th i s g o nna

effect w hat’ s g oi n’ on[ ?] Passwater : To be hones t, Idon’ t know

— I m ea n . . . H am p to n : W h at d oes

— w h a td o e s me

— m y a tto rney

b ein ’ p re se n t h a s t o d o w ith it

— you kn ow w h a t I’m sa yin ’? T h at ’s w h at I
. . . Idon ’t .
. . that ’s w ha t ya’l l d on’t u nd erst an d

. . . you m ak in ’ m e [. . .] Passwater : I fyo u w ant a l aw yerthen w e nee d to

sto p the deal, o kay ? H am p ton : See, I ’m

—6 N o. 10

- 1479 P a s s wa t e r : I t ’ s o n e wa y o r a n o th e r . O K? H ampto n: Ye ah, c o m e o n man. Passwater : A l l r i ght. N i ch o l o s: W an na g o o n? Ha mpt o n: Go a he a d. The offi cer s there aftertr i ed to cl ar i fy whether H am pton w an ted an a tto rney . H am pton as ked ag ai n how an a ttorne y’s prese nc e w ou ld affect his situation

. T he officers r epe at edl y e xpl aine d tha t th eyc oul d no t co nt i nue the in te rv iew if H am p to n w an te d a l a w y er . Th ey als o t old hi m the y c o ul d no t prom ise hi m a de ala nd tha t th e dec i s i o n whe the r t o h a v e a l a wy e r p r e s e ntwa s h i s. W he n Hampto n b eg anv en tu r i ng int o the f ac ts o fthe case , the offi cer s a gai n pres sed hi m to cl ar i fy whether h e w an te d co u n se l: Ni c ho l o s : Ag a i n, do y o u wa nt a n a t t o r ne y he r e o r

not? Im ean, yo u ask ed f oran a tto rney, w e ha ve t o g ettha t cl ea r ed up b ef ore w e tal k about anythi ng. You kno w wh at I ’ m sa yi ng? H am pton: Ithi nk, I, Ifel t l i ke i t s houl d h av e been

an at torney he re cause that ’ s wh at I as k e d fo r . Y o u k no w wha tI ’ m s a y i ng? B efo re w e t alk ed

. . . N ich olo s: T h en w e’r e d on e . . . H am p to n : Y ea h [.] N i chol os: You know w hat I ’ m s ay ing? W e’ re not

go in g t o s it he re an d p lay , yo u kn ow . . .N o. 10

- 1479 7 H am p to n : N aw , i t’s , Id on ’t . .
. N i chol os: Cause yo u ask ed f oran a tto rney . H ampto n: Tha t’ s th e whol e po i nt m an, Ido n’ t want

ya’ l l to thi nk I ’ m pla yi ng w i th you o r som ethi ng. N ich olo s: N o . . . H am pton: I j ust w ant eve ry thi ng to see , m y p oint,

you know w hat I ’ m sa yi ng? N icholos: R ight, I he ar you , th at’s your right. Th at’s

why we r ea d y o u th o se r i g ht s m an . W e’ re notgo i ng to thin k anythi ng l ess ofyo u beca use y ou want an at torney. That’s y ou r ri ght. That’ s why w e r ead y o u tho se r i g ht s m an . H am pton: Right. N i ch o l o s: Yo u c ho o se o ne , y o u c ho ose o ne , man.

N o ha r d fee l i ng s. Yo u kno w w ha t I ’m say i ng? H am p ton : Ikeep tell ing ya’llm an, that that ’s

n ot
. . . th at I to ld y a ’ ll w h o’s gu n it is like

. . . Ni c ho l o s : Iu nd e r s t a nd

. H am pton: Iwil l gi ve a wri tte n sta tem ent a nd te sti fy, man. Passwater : Oh, oka y b ut we .
. . o nc e a gai n, we got

to know do y ou want an at torney o r n ot ? I m ea n ye s o r n o? It’s t h at
. . .8 N o. 10

- 1479 H ampto n: N o , I d on’twantno a tt o r ne y f o r r i g ht

n o w. H ampto n the n g ave the f o l l o wi ngs ta te m en t to the o ffi c e r s : O n th e n i g h t o f h i s a r r e s t, h e wa s ha ng i ng a r o un d wi th a n a c qu a i nt a nc e n am e d “ M i k e - M i k e ” a nd a fe w o the r s o ut s i de the apar t men tb ui l di ngo n W i l dw oo d Av e nu e . S ho r t l y b e f o r e the p o l i c e a r r i v e d, Mi k eM i ke ask ed H am pton to hol d hi s gun . H am pton i ni ti al l y a g r ee d a nd b r i eflyt o o kM i k e- M i k e’ s g un, b ut then g ot scar ed and ga ve it back. W hen the pol i ce ar r i ve d i n the ne i g hb o r ho o d a nd a ppr o ac he d the g r o up o ut s i de the a pa r t men tb ui l di ng, e v e r y o ne s c a t t e r e d. H ampto n i ns i st ed i t was M i k e- M i k e who ca r r i ed th e gun i nto the a partm ent b uil ding du ri ng the chase

. H am pton was char ged with posse ssi on o fa fi rear m by a fel on a s an ar m ed car eercr i m i nal i n vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S.C . § § 9 22( g) ( 1) and 924 ( e)
. H e m ove d to supp re ss hi s st at ement. The di st r i ctc o ur t he ar d e vi den ce o n the m oti o n, i nc l udi ngthe a udi o r ec o r di nga nd t es ti m o ny f ro m N i chol os, Pass w ate r, a n d H am pton. The o ffi cer s’ acco unt ofwh at happ ened bef or e the r eco rded port i on ofthe i nter vi ew di ffer ed sl i ghtl y from H am pton’ s. The di st r i ctc o ur t cr edi te d the o ffi ce r s’ v er si on, a nd H am p ton doe s not ch all en ge th at p a r t o f th e cou rt’s ru lin g on ap p ea l. A s for th e record ed p ortion of th e interview , th e cou rt hel d that ( 1) Ham pton hi m sel fr ei ni ti ate d the co nver sation w ith th e officers; ( 2) M i r anda w arn ings w ere proper l y adm i ni ste re d; and (3 ) H am pton’ s r efer ences to an at torney were am bi guous and did not am ou n t to anN o. 10

- 1479 9 unequivo calr equest f orco u n sel. The j ud ge obs er ved th at H am pton was “l oo ki ng f ora deal and a way ou t,” w hi l e the o ffi cer s “w er e doi ng ev er ythi ng poss ibl e t o co m pl y wi ththe l aw. ” H ampto n’s equi vo ca ti o n, the j ud g e h e l d , p r o mpt e d th e o ffi c e r s t o t r y t o c l a r i fy t he si tuati on; theyga ve H am p ton “eve ryo pp or tuni ty to have a l aw yer, ” but H am pt on “conti nued to fi sh .

. . f or a deal

. ” The j ud ge concl u d ed t h at “[ w ] hat M r. H am pton n e e d e d t o d o a n d

. . . d i d n o t d o w a s m a k e a c l e a r , u n a mbi guous ass er ti on o fhi s r i ght t o c ou n se l to st op questi o ni ng . Tha t di dn’ t ha ppenhe r e. ” Acco rd ingl y, the cour t deni ed the m oti on t o supp re ss. The go vern m ent intro du ced H am pton’ s s tat em ent a t tr i a l, p l a y i ngthe a ud i o r e c o r di ngf o r the j ur y . Ha m pton wa s c o nv i c t e d

. T h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t( “ P S R ” ) r e c o mm ended that Ham pton be cl ass i fi ed a s an ar m ed car eer cr i m in alb as ed o n thr ee pr i o r fel o ny c o nv i ct i o ns

— o ne f orhom e invasi on a nd two f orag gr avat ed batt er y. H am pton o bj ecte d to th e arm ed car eercr i m i nal desi gnati o n, a r g ui ngtha t o ne o fhi s ag gravat ed ba tt er y c o nvi ct i o ns

— a 19 99 I l l i no i s co nv i ct i o n f o r making“ i nsulting orpro vok i ng” physi calco n ta c t w i th a peace offi cer

— did no t qu a l i fy a s a v i o l e nt fe l o ny un de r the ACCA o r a cr i m e o fvi ol ence und erthe cor re sponding gui deli ne s p rovisi on, U
. S. S. G . § 4B 1.1. Th e d istri ct cou rt overrul ed th e obj ecti on a nd acc epted the PSR’ s r eco m m endation. A s a result H am p ton w as su bj ect to a stat u tory m inim um sent en ce of 15 years i n p rison an d an ad v is o ry sen ten cin g r an ge of 235 to 293 m ont hs

. Th e cou rt i m po se d a s en te nc e o f2 52 months , wel l above the sta tutor y m i ni m um and in the m i dd l e o fthe gui del i nes r a ng e . Ha mpt o n a pp e a l e d.10 N o. 10

- 1479 I I . Discussi on H am pton r ai ses two i ssues o n appeal : ( 1) h is c ustodi al state m en t w as p rocu red i n violation of M ir anda an d Edwards an d sh o ul d ha ve be en su ppr es se d; an d ( 2) the I l l i no i s ag g r av at ed-ba tt er y o ffen se o fmakingi nsulting o r pro vo k i n gc o n t a c twi th a p e a c e o ffi c e r i s n o ta v i o l en t fe l o n y u n d e r th e AC C A.

A . Ham pton’ s Sup pres si on M ot i on Ha mpt o n a r g ue s tha tNi c ho l o s a nd P a s s wa t e r i m prop erly qu estione d him i n violation of M i r a nd a a nd Edwards afterhe invoke d his r i ght t o c ou n se l and the dist ri ct c o u r tth e r e f o r e s h o u l d h a v e g r a n t e d h i s mo t i o n t o s up press . I n an appeal c h alleng i ng the deni alo fa m oti on to su ppr es s, we r ev i ew the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s l eg alc o nc l usions d e nov o and i ts fac t u a l fi nd ings for clear error. U nited Sta tes v. Lee, 413 F.3d 622 , 624-25 (7th C ir. 2005). To pro tecta suspect’ s F i fth A m endm ent r i ght a gai nst co m pel l ed se lf

- i nc r i m i na ti o n, c us to di ali nt er r o g at i o ns m us t be p reced ed by the f am il iar M i r a n d a w ar ni ngs, i nc lu d in g a warni ng tha t the suspecthas a r i ght t o an at to r ne y a t st at e ex pen se duringque st i o ni ng ; i fthe su s pe c ti nv o k e s the r i g htt o c o un s e l, h e “ i s n o ts ubj ect t o fur the r i nt e r r o g a t i o n . . . unti l c o un s e l h a s b e e n mad e avai l abl e t o hi m , unl ess [ he] hi m sel fi ni ti ate s further co m m uni ca ti o n, e xc ha ng es , o r c o nv er sa ti o ns wi ththe pol i ce. ” Ed wa r ds , 4 51 U .S. at 4 84 -85 ; s e eal s o M i r anda , 384 U
. S. at 474. Qu estioning m ay con tinu e, how ever, i fthe susp ec t’ s r efer ence to counsel“i s a m bi guous orN o. 10

- 1479 11 eq uivo c a l in t ha t a reason able officer i n li gh t of th e circumst an ce s woul d ha ve unde r st o o d o nl y tha t th e suspect m ightbe i nvoking the r i ght t o counsel

. ” D avi s v. U nited Sta tes , 5 12 U. S
. 4 52 , 4 59 ( 19 94 )
. I n thi s si tu at i o n, a l th o u g h “ i twi l l o ft e n b e g o o d p o l i c e p r a c t i c e f o r the i nt er vi ewi ngo ffi ce r s to c l ar i fy whethe r o r no t [ th e suspect] actual l y wants an att or ney, ” the pol i ce a re not c on st itu tio n ally ob liga te d to a s k cla rify in g q u es tio n s. Id

. at 461. But a r equest f orco unsel, unequiv oc al w hen m ade, cannotbe re nd er ed e q u i voca l by co nti nued questio n in g. Sm it h v. Il li nois , 469 U
. S. 91, 100 (1984 ). P ut differ en tl y, a s us pec t’ s l at ers tatem en ts i n r es po ns e to c o nti nued questi oni ng ca nn ot be use d to und er m i ne an ea rlier u n am b igu ou s inv oc at ion of th e rig h t t o c ou n se l. Id. H er e, mos t o fthe e vi den ti ar y f ac ts r el ev an t to the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s s up pr es sio n deci si on were capture d on a u d iot ap e a n d are n otsu b j ec t t o d isp u te . A fte r in itia lly si gni ng a M i r anda wai ve r, Ham pto n ch ang ed hi s m i nd a nd i nv o k e d h i s r i g htt o c o un s e l, wh i c h wa s h o no r e d; questi oni ng i m m edi ate l y c eas ed and the o ffi cer s a rr anged for H am p ton to be ret urn ed to his cell

. W he n th e gua rd ar r i ve d, Ham p tonc ha ng ed co ur se a nd r ee ng ag ed th e offic er s, s a y in g h e w an te d to p ro c ee d w ith ou t c ou n se l. The o ffi ce r s pr o per l y s ta r te d a ne w w i thfr es h M i r anda wa r n i n g s . Thi s i s wh e r e th e a u d i o t a p e b e g i n s , a n d we ha ve re pr o duce d the mos t i m po r ta ntpa r ts o fthe tr anscr i pt abo ve. The part i es disa gr ee abo u t the l ega l signifi can ce of w ha t w as said du ring the rec ord ed pa rt o fthe i nt er vi ew. Di d Ham pto n unequi vocallyre-invo ke h is rig h t t o c ou n se l?12 N o. 10

- 1479 H ampton foc us es o n t wo pa r ti cul ars ta te m en ts he m ade on the r eco rdi ng. A fterPass w ate r adm i ni ste re d n e w M i r anda w ar ni ngs a nd as ked H am pton wh ether he want ed a l awy er, h e r es po nde d, “ Ye ah, Ido , b ut you . . . . ” Ham pton co ntends thatthi s s tat em ent w as an unam bi guous re quest forco unsel

. The go ver nm en t d i sagrees, defen d ing the district cou rt’s conte xt ua l interpreta ti on. The go ver nm ent m ai ntai ns thatthe use o f th e qua l i fy i ng w ord “ but ” when co ns i der ed i n l i g ht ofH am pton’ s pri orequ i voca ti on would l ead a re as o n a b l e o ffi c e r t o c o n c l u d e o n l y th a tHa mpt o n m ight b e in vo kin g h is r igh t t o c ou n se l, n otth at h e c lea rly w as doi ng so . The go ver nm ent i s r i ght t o consi der Ha m p ton’ s s tat em ent in l i ght o fthe ci rcum sta nces i n w hi ch i t was m ade. W hethera suspect cl ear l y invok ed h i s r i ght t o cou n se l is an o bj ecti ve i nquir y. D a vis, 512 U
. S. at45 8- 59; U nited Sta tes v . M a r t i n, 664 F.3d 684, 688 (7th Cir. 2011); U nited Sta tes v. Sh a ba z, 579 F .3 d 8 15, 818 ( 7th Cir. 2009). W e ha ve e m pha si ze d tha t th e “a na l y si s does no t en d w i th words al one; . . . w e al so consi der the ci rcum sta nces i n w hi ch the sta tem ent was m ade. ” Shabaz , 57 9 F. 3d at 81 9; s e ea l s o L or d v. Duckwo rt h , 29 F. 3d 1216 , 12 21 ( 7th Ci r . 1 9 9 4 ) ( “ [ T] he c o nt e xti n which [ the s us pe c t ] ma de re f er en c e t o a l a wy e r a l s o s up po r t s the c o nc l us i o n tha t an y requ est for coun sel w as am biguou s . . . . ”). H er e, H am pton had al re ady s i gned a M i randa w ai ver an d agr eed to tal k to the offi cer s w i thout a l aw yer, on ly to c ha ng e hi s m i nd j us t as the i nt er vi ew was g et ting un d erw ay. T he officers i m m ed iately stop p ed the inter-N o. 10

- 1479 13

ro gat i on a nd sum m oned a guar d t o tak e Ham pton bac k to hi s ce l l

. W hen the guar d arr i ved, H am pton chan ged hi s m i nd ag ain and re i ni ti ate d the i nter vi ew , as ki ng to ta l kt o the o ffi ce r s wi th o uta n a tt o r ney pre se nt
. The offi cer s paused and to okthe preca uti onar y s te p o f bringi ng i n audio re cor ding equi pm ent. W hen P as sw ate r re new ed the M i r anda w ar n in gs , H am p to n h es ita te d ag ain and app ear ed t o h ave anothe r change ofhear t. Based on thi s pat te r n o fe qui vo ca ti o n a nd b ec au se Ham pton’s r e fe r e n c e t o a l awy er us e d th e h e d g e wo r d “ b u t, ” we agr ee w i th the gov er nm ent that a re aso nable offi cer wou ld have unde r st o o d o nl y tha t H ampto n m ightwant ana tt o r ne y pr es en t, no t th athe was clearl y i nv o k i ng h is rig h t t o d e a l w ith th e o ffice rs on ly th ro u gh co u n se l. Se e, e . g. , D avis , 512 U
. S. at45 5 ( the s tat em ent “ [ m ] aybe Is ho ul d t al kt o a law y er ” was no t anuna m bi g uo us re q u es t fo r c ou n se l); Shab az , 579 F.3 d a t 819 ( the questi on “ am Igo i ng to be abl e t o ge t an at torney” w as not an u n am b igu ou s req u es t f o r c o u n se l); Lo rd, 29 F. 3d at 1221 ( th e qu estion “I can’t affor d a l aw yer bu t is th ere an y way Ic anget o ne ?” was no t anuna m bi g uo us re q u es t fo r c o u n s e l); U nited Sta tes v. B uc k ley, 4 F. 3d 552, 55 8-5 9 (7 th C i r . 1 99 3) (t h e s ta te m en t “ I d on ’t k n ow if Ineed an a tto rney ” was notan unam bi guous re quest for cou ns el)

. E ve n if H am p to n ’ s s t a t e m en t “ Y ea h, Id o, bu t y ou . . . ” was de fi ni te e no ug h t o c o ns ti tu te a n un ambi g uo us r e qu e s tf o r c o u n s e l ( a n d c o n s i d e r i n gth e c o n t e x t, w e do not thi nk i t w as ), the r eco rd i s cl earthatno i nter ro gati o n o cc ur r ed unt i l Ham pto n hi mself r es um ed th e co nver sat i on. Pas sw ate r i m m edi ate l y t ol d H am pton that14 N o. 10

- 1479 th ey cou ld n ot talk to him i f he w as asking f or a l aw yer. A l ong m om en t o fsi l ence f ol l owed i n w hi ch nei ther offic er as ke d a q u e s t i on or s aid an yt h in g fu rt h er . A fu ll f i v e s e c o n d s p a s s e d b e f o r e Ha mpt o n r e e n g a g e d t he o ffi c e r s b y a s k i ngthe m ho w the p r e s e nc e o fa n a t tor ney w o u ld affect h is si tu ation. On ce h e d id th is, the offi cers were per m i tt ed to r es um e que st i o ni ng, a l th o ug h the re cor d refl ects thatwh at happ ened next was notan interrogation at a llbu t an effort to cl arify H am p ton ’s in te n t. T h ou gh n ot c on st itu tio n ally req u ire d , th is is j us t w ha t the Su p rem e C ou rt recom m en d s tha t officers d o in th is s itu at ion
. SeeD avis , 51 2 U.S
. at46 1. The ne xts everal min ut es o fthe a udi o ta pe co nsis ts of p u ta tiv e b ar ga in in g b y H am p to n . H e is p lain ly tr y i ng

— as th e d ist r i c t c o u rtap tly p u t it

— to “fi sh .

. . f or a deal

. ” Fo r th ei r part, the offi cer s co nti nued to pre ss hi m f ora deci si on about counsel

. W hen he s tar ted to ve er int o t h e f ac ts of th e c as e, th e o ffice rs st op p ed h im an d again tried to clarify w h eth er he w an ted an att orn ey . In r e sp on se H am p to n sa id , “I th in k, I, I felt like it shoul d h ave bee n an at torney he re cause that ’ s what I ask ed f or . ” This i s the seco nd sta tem ent t h at H am pton em phas izes
. Consi dered i n conte xt, however, thi s s tat em en t, l i k e th e ea rli ero ne , i s no t anuna m bi g uo us re q u es t fo r c ou n se l. By thi s poi nt i n the encounter, H am pton had twice m en ti o ne d a n atto r ne y o nl y t o c ha ng e hi s m i nd a nd reiniti ate th e con versat ion w ith th e officers. Th e off ic e rs scr up ulo usl y ho nor ed H am pton’ s r equest f orcounsel th at oc c u rre d so on a f te r h is in itia l M i r anda w aiv er ; hisN o. 10

- 1479 15 fi rs t r efer ence to counsel w as not uncle ar . H am pton th en cha ng ed his m ind and asked to talk to the of fi cers wi th o uta n attorney
. W ar y, the o ffi ce r s be g anr ec o r di ng th e c o n v e r s a t i o n . Al mo s ti mme d i a t e l y af te r n e w M i r anda war ni ngs, H ampto n a g ain ment i o ne d a l awy er, b ut thi s t i me he e qu i v o c a t e d. Ag a i n the o ffi c e r s st opped th e in te rv iew , rem i n d i n g h im th at th ey co u ld n ’t t alk any furthe r i fhe was as ki ng f orco unsel

. H am pton pause d t o th ink about i t, then plunged ba ck i n and tr i ed to tak e con tr olo fthe si tuati on, as ki ng the o ffi cer s ho w a law yer w ou ld affect hi s s it u a t ion. A s he sea rch ed f or a deal, theyto ok anothe r stab atcl ar i fyi ng hi s intent. W hen he s tr aye d in to t he f acts o fthe case , theyst opped hi m and i nsi ste d on a cl ar i fi cati on o fhi s desi re f or counselbefor e pr oce edi ng. U n d er thes e ci rcum sta nces, H am p to n ’s s ta te m en t “ I th in k, I, I felt like itsh ou ld have been an at torney he re cause that ’ s what Ias ked f or ” was notdefi ni te enough t o unam bi guousl y invoke th e rig h t t o c ou n se l. In st ea d , a r ea so n ab le offic er w ou ld ha ve u nd erstood that H am p ton m ight w an t a l aw yer, but al so m i ght want to pro ceed witho ut o ne. I n shor t, we agr ee w i th the di str i ct c ou rt thatH am pton d i d not “ m ake a cl earand unam bi guous ass er ti on o fhis ri ght t o counselto st op questi oni ng. ” U n i t e d Sta tes v. Lee, 413 F.3d 622, 625 (7th Cir. 2005). T he officers’ effort to obt ai n clari fi cati on

— even tu all y resulting in a fi rm “no” f ro m H am pton thath e did notwant counsel pr es en t

— w as a pp ro pri ate and consi ste nt with the “ goo d po l i ce pr ac ti ce ” en do r se d b y the S upr eme Co ur t i n D avis . H am p to n ’s m ot ion to su p p re ss w as p ro p er ly d en ied

.16 N o. 10

- 1479 B. Armed Car eerCr i m i nal D esi gnat i on H am pton al so chal l enges the dist ri ct court ’ s dete rm i nati on that hi s pri orco nvi cti on f orm aki ng i nsul ti ng o r provo ki ng co ntact w i th a peace offi cer, a f or m o fag gr av a t e d b a t t e r y i n I l l i no i s , i s a “ v i o l e ntfe l o ny ” u nd er the AC CA and a “ cri m e o fvi ol ence” i n the parl ance of t h e s en te n c in g g u id elin es , see U. S
. S
. G
. § 4 B
. 1
. 2 ( a )
. We re vi ew thi s l ega l r uling de novo. U nite d State s v. Sm it h , 544 F.3d 781, 783 (7th Cir. 2008). T h e A C C A en h an c es a se n te n c e fo r b ein g a felon in posse ssi on o fa fi re ar m i fthe d efe n dant has three pri or c on vi cti ons f ora “vi ol ent fel ony. ” See 18 U. S
. C. § 9 24 (e). A “vi ole n t fel ony” i s defi ned as a cr i m e punis habl e by a y earo r m or e in pri son that ( i ) has a s a n el em ent the use, at tem pted use, o r thre aten e d u s e o f p h y s i c a l f o r c e a g a i n s t th e p e r s o n o fa nothe r; o r ( i i ) i s b u rg lar y, ar son, o r extor ti on, i nvol ves the use of e x p los ive s, or othe rwi se involves conduct t hat pre se nts a seriou s po tentia l risk o f ph ysic a l inju ry to an o ther

. . . . Id. § 92 4( e) ( 2) ( B) ( emphas i s adde d). A de fen dan t’ s st atus as an ar m ed car eercr i m i na l al so enhances hi s o ffense l ev ela n d c r i mi n a l h i s t o r y c a t e g o r y u n d e r th e s e n t e n c i ng gu id elin es . See U
. S. S. G. § 4 B1. 4. H ampto n co nc ede s th at two o f hi s pr i o r conv i ct i o ns a r e v i o l e n t fe l o n i e s : h i s I l l i n o i s c o n v i c t i o n s f o r h o me in va sio n an d for a gg r a v a te d ba tt er y for ca u sin g b od ily harm to a peace offi cer . H e a rgues that hi s 1 999 agg ra vate d-bat ter y c onvi cti on

— f o r making“ i ns ul tingN o. 10

- 1479 17

orpro vok i ng” physi calco ntact w i th a peace offi cer

— does not quali fy a s a vi ol ent fel ony. Every one agr ees thati fthi s co nvi cti on i s t o be c ounted as an A CC A pre dica te, i t m ust s ati sfy the so

- cal l ed “r esi du alcl ause” ofthe vi ol ent- fel ony defini ti on, wh i ch sw eeps in c rim es that “otherwis e invol ve[ ] co nd uct that prese nts a se ri ous pot enti al ris k o fphysi cali nj ury to an oth er. ” 18 U
. S. C
. § 9 24(e)(2) (B). T he Sup rem e C ou rt re qui r e s tha t we us e a c a t e g o r i c a l a pp r o a c h, whi c h i s t o saywe exam i ne o nl y ” ‘ w hetherthe e l e m e nts of t he o ffense ar e o fthe type that w oul d j u st ify i ts i ncl usi on wi th i n the r es i dualpr o vi si o n, wi th ou t in qui r i ngi nt o the speci fi c co nd uct o fthi s par ti cul aro ffender. ’ ” S yke s v. U nited Sta tes , 1 3 1 S
. Ct
. 2 2 6 7, 2 2 7 2 ( 2 0 1 1 ) ( qu oti ng Ja m es v. U nited Sta tes , 55 0 U.S. 192, 20 2 ( 2007 ) )
. The cat ego ri cal ap p ro ac h as se ss es th e ris k of i nj u ry in t h e g en er ic offe n se as g en er ally co m m itt ed

. Id

. a t2 2 7 5
. “ [ A] c r i me i nv o l ve s th e r equi si te r i sk when ‘ th e r i sk po se d by [the cri m e in questi on] i s c om p ar abl e t o that posed by i ts closest an al o ga m ong the en um erated offen ses’ “

— nam el y, burgl ar y, ar son, exto rt i on, o r c rim es i nvol vi ng the use of e x p los ive s. Id

. a t2 2 7 3 ( qu o ti ng Ja m es , 550 U
. S. at 203); see also B ega y v . U nited Sta tes , 553 U
. S. 137, 144-45 (2008 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. D i s m uke, 593 F.3d 583 , 589 (7th C ir. 2010). Under I l l i no i s l aw a per so n co m m i ts ba tt er y “ifhe i ntenti onal l y o r know in gl y without l ega l j usti fi cati on an d by an y m ea n s (1 ) ca u se s b o d ily h ar m to an ind ivid ual o r ( 2) m ake s physi calco ntact ofan insul ti ng o r provo ki ng n at u re with a n i nd i vi du al

. ” 7 20 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5 / 1 2

- 3 ( a ) ( 1 9 9 3 )
. S i mpl e b a t t e r y i s t r e a t e d a s a18 N o. 10

- 1479

The d efini ti on of “cri m e ofviole nce” i n the care er- of f ender 2 gui del i ne s i s al m os tid en t i c al t o the defi ni t i on of“vi ol en t f el ony” i n the ACCA ; ther efor e, our c as el aw i nt er pre t i ng the tw o d e fin iti o n s is in te rc h a n g ea b le

. U ni t ed Sta t es v. Templ et on , 5 4 3 F .3d 37 8 , 38 0 (7t h C ir . 20 0 8 ). fel ony agg ra vate d batte ry i fo ne o fse ver alenum er ate d ag gr av at in g fa c to rs i s p re se n t. Se ei d. 5/ 12- 4( b) ( 6)
. H er e, H am p ton w as con victed i n 19 99 o f th e sim p le battery f or m o fthe offense

— m or e s peci fica l l y, the “i nsul ti ng o r p rovoking” cont act form

—but the cr i m e was el evat ed to fel ony agg ra vate d batt er y b ecause the vi cti m was “a peace offi cer. . . en ga ge d in the executi on o f

. . . o ffi ci al du ti es. ” Se ei d. W e have al re ady address ed the re l ate d questi on wheth e r th e i n s u l t i n g - o r - p r o v o k i n gc o n t a c tf o r m o ft he I l l i no i s ba tt er y o ff ens e i s a cr i m e o fv i o l en ce unde r the c ar ee r-o ffen d er se n te n c in g gu id elin e w h en th e offen s e is a fe l o ny a g g r a v a t e d b a t t e r y b e c a us e the v i c t i m i s a pre gn a n two m an . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Evans , 57 6 F
. 3d 766 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. I n Ev ans we he l d tha t m ak i ngi ns ul ting orpro vok i ng co ntact w i th a pregnant wom an i s no t a cr i m e o fv i o l en ce b ec au se : ( 1) the a cto fmakingi ns ul ting orpro vok i ng co ntact

— w hi ch m i gh t incl ud e g i vi ng an unwant ed kiss a nd o fte n i nc l ude s spi tt i ng

— does not g en er al lyc r ea te a r i sko fi nj ur y ; a nd ( 2) the r e was no evi dence thatthe typicalcr i m e o fm aki ng i nsul ti ng o r provo ki ng co ntact w i th a pregnant wom an i s v i ol en t. Id. at 768- 69. I n an other case

— albei t a nonprec edenti al or der

— w e hel d that “ [ t] he presence ofa differ ent a g-N o. 10

- 1479 19 gr avat i ng f acto r

— a publ i c pl ac e r athe r tha n a pr egna nt v i c tim

— do e s notchange Evans ’ s co ncl usi on t hat in su ltin g or p r o v o k i n g c on ta c t, in th e o rd in ar y c as e, is not vi ol ent. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 365 F. A p p ’x 3, 5 (7th C ir. 2010). At i s s u e h e r e i s wh e th e r th e p r e s e n c e o fa d i f f er en t agg ra vating f acto r

— a p ea c e-o ffice r vic tim

— ch an g es the an aly sis
. Evans l eft o pen the pos sibi l i ty that othe r ve r si o ns o fthe I l l i no i s ag g r av at ed-ba tt er y o ffen se might b e a c r i me o fv i o l e n c e ( o ra v i o l e n tfe l o n y ) i fth e c r i me as g en er all y c o m m i tt ed i s vi o l en t an d c ar r i es the r equi r ed deg r ee o fr i sko fphy si ca l i nj ur y . Her e, the dist ri ct c ourthel d th at w hen com m i tte d agai nst a peace offi cer, the offense ofm aki ng i nsul ti ng o r pro v o k i ng ph y s i c a l c o nt a c t g e ne r a l l y c r e a t e s a r i s k o f i nj ury com parabl e t o the r i sk cre ate d by th e e num er ate d offenses i n the re si du alcl ause. To supp or t thi s concl usi on, the dist ri ct cou rt rel i ed pr i m aril y o n s ta ti st i cs s ubmi tt ed bythe g o ve r nm en t regard ing the i nc iden ce of i njur y t o p oli ce offi cers du ri ng as saul ts. These sta ti sti cs

— com pil ed by the Departm ent o fJ usti ce ( “DO J ”)

— show that i n 2008 , 26% ofr epor ted as saul ts on l aw - enf or cem ent o ffi cer s r esul ted i n i nj uri es to the o fficer

— a r ate 13 ti m es hi gher th an th e 2% inj ury rate for bu rglari es, a c r im e sp ecifi cal l y l i ste d i n the resi du alcl ause. But w hi l e s tat i sti cs c an so m et im es u se fu lly in for m t h e a n aly sis , s e e, e . g. , Sy k es , 1 31 S
. Ct
. a t 22 74

- 75 , the DOJ r epo r t i s no t he l pful here

. I ts m etho dol ogyse cti on s tat es: Law enf or cem ent a gencie s r epor t t o the [ cri m e- re po r ting ] [ p] r o g r am th e number o f as sa ul ts resul ting20 N o. 10

- 1479 i n i nj uri es to thei r offi cer s o r i nstance s i n w hi ch an offe nd erused a w eapon that co uld have cause d inj u ry or d ea th . A ge n c ies rec or d ot h er as sa u lts on ly i ftheyi nvol ved m or e t h an ve rba l abuse o r m i nor re si sta nce t o an ar re st. I n o th erwor ds, the repor t f o cus es o n s e r i ous physi cal ass aul ts on o ffi cer s, w h ich would l i kel y b e char ged as a bodi l y inj ury batt er y under th e I l l i noi s ba tte ryst atute
. The DO J r epor t s peci fi cal l y e xcl ud es nonser ious ass aul ts; onl y ass aul ts that i nvol ved “m or e than verbal abuse o r m i no r r es i st an ce t o a n a r r es t” wer e r epo r te d. As su ch, the DOJ r epo r t do es no t painta n a cc ur at e pictu re o fthe f r eque nc y o fo ffi ce r i nj ur i es r es ultingfr o m “ i ns ul ting orpro vok i ng” c ontac t ba tte rie s invol vi ng l aw - enf or cem ent o ffi cer s a s v i cti m s. T he govern m en t also analogizes this form of batt ery to felon y v eh icu l a r f l igh t, w h ich th e Su p re m e C ou rth eld to be a vi ol ent fel ony und erthe A CC A
. S e e Sy k es , 131 S. Ct. a t 22 77
. T he Co ur t i n Sy k es o bser ved thatev en at l o w spe eds , v eh i cul arfl i g hti s dan gerou s to pur su i ng o ffi cers, othe r mot o r i st s, a nd b y st an der s be ca us e th e offi cer s m ay be c om pel l ed to u se c ounter m aneuver s t o su b d u e t h e fle ein g v eh icle

. Seeid

. at22 73- 74. By anal ogy, the g ove rnm ent a rgues that e ven a light i nsul ti ng o r provo ki ng conta ct w i th a peace offi cer has the po tenti al to i nd uce a counte rrea cti on that pos es a s er i ous r i sk ofi nj ury to the o ffi cero r othe rs . W e fi nd thi s co m pari son i napt. S ett i ng as i de the or derso f

- m agni tu de dif fer en ce b etwee n the f o r ce o fa fl ee i ng ve hi cl e an d th at of, s ay, a po k i ngfi ng er, v eh i cul arfl i g htN o. 10

- 1479 21 i s inherent l y m or e r i skyt h an m aki ng i nsul ti ng o r provok i ng conta ct w i th an offi cer . The f or m er offen se , a s gener al l y c om m itte d, necess ar i l y invol ves re si sta nce t o th e o ffi ce r ’ s au th o r i tyb y the use o fa da ng er o us i ns tr um ental i ty

— a fle ein g v eh icle

— and i t ind uces a n esc ala ted re ac tio n from th e p u rs u i n g off ice r th at inh er en tly car ri es hei ghtene d ri sk ofi nj ury to othe rs . I n contr ast, th e in su ltin g-o r-p ro vo kin g-c on ta c t o ffen se , th ou gh it m ay re quir e a cert ain br avado i n the f ace ofautho ri ty, d oe s not e ntai l r esi sta nce o fthe sor t that o rdi naril y i nd uces a n esc al ate d res ponse fro m the offi certhatputs th e o ffice r or ot h er s a t a sim ilar se riou s r i s k o f inju ry . See, e . g. , P eople v . Sm it h , 79 4 N
. E.2 d 408, 40 9- 11 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 2003 ) (affirm ing con viction un d er the insu lti ng -orprovo ki ng- conta ct pr ovi si on f or t hro w i ng m i l k thro ugh c e l l d oo r at gu ar d ); P eoplev. Peck, 63 3 N
. E.2 d 222, 22 3- 24 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 19 94) ( affi rm i ng co n vi cti on f orspi tti ng o n a p oli ce offi cer); see a lso G a r c i a - M eza v. M uk a sey, 51 6 F. 3d 535, 53 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( su g gestingtha t so m eo ne coul d be co nvi cted f orcr um pli ng up parking ti cket an d throw ing it at th e issuing offi cer’s shoe s). Fin ally , th e g ov er n m en t a rg u es th at a p e r s o n w h o is bra zen en ough t o m ake i nsul ti ng o r provo ki ng physi cal c on ta c t w ith a p ea c e o ffice r is a lso li ke ly to vio len tly re sis t a rre st . B u t t h e in q u iry u n d e r t h e res id u al c lau se is not w he th er s o mei ns tan ces o fthe c r i m e po se a s er i o us r i s k o f i nj u r y t o o th e r s . R a th e r, o u r f o c u s i s o n t he gener ic c ri m e a s o rdi nari l y c om m i tte d

— that i s, wh ether m o sti nstance s o fthe c rim e prese nt the r equi re d d e g r e e o f risk

. Se eD i s m uke, 5 9 3 F
. 3 d a t5 9 4
. Ap p l y i ng th e c a te go ric al a p p ro ac h, w e c on c lu d e t h at th e Illino is22 N o. 10

- 1479

W ithout the arm ed caree r c ri m inal desi gnation, the 15- year 3 m anda t or y m i ni m um drops out, and the s t atutory m ax i m um b ec o m es te n y ea rs . S ee 18 U.S. C. § 924( a) ( 2)
. H a m pton’ s guid elin es ra n g e t h u s b ec o m es 12 0 m o n th s. S eeU.S. S. G
. § 5G1.1.

3- 27- 12 agg ra vate d-bat ter y offense of m aki ng i nsul ti ng o r provo ki ng c o nt a c t wi th a pe a c e o ffi c e r do e s no t qu a l i fy a s a v iole n t fe lon y a n d is th er efo re n otan A C C A p re d ica te
. Be ca us e th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s det er m i na ti o n t o the c o n t r a r y e n ha n c e d Ha mpt o n ’ s s e n t e n c i n gr a n g e , we 3 vacat e the se ntence and rem and fo r re sente nci ng. A FF I R MED i n part, V ACA T ED i n pa r t, a nd R EMAND ED .