N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. KENYATTA B ER

NARD STEPPES, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-10243

D.C . No. 2:14-c r-00100-GMNGW F-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Gloria M . Nava rro, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

11, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FAR

RIS, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a

nd C H RISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Ke ny atta Ste ppe s c ha lle n ge s the se nte nc e im pose d upon his c o nvic tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 2113(a) for one c ount of c re dit union robbery , one c ount of ba nk robbe ry , a

nd two c ounts of a

tte m pte d ba nk robbe ry . B e c a

u se the fa c ts a

re known to thepa rtie s, we d o not repe at the m he re . 

# FIL ED JUN 10 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.I

The distric t c ourt did not err in a pply i ng a c are e r offe nde r e nha

nc e m e nt unde r the fe de ra l se nte nc ing guide line s. Se e U.S. Se nte n c ing Guide line s M anua l § 4B 1 .1 (U.S. Se nte nc ing C om m ’ n 2014). Notwithsta

n ding there sidua l c la

use in
se c t ion 4B 1.2(a )(2), e a c h of Ste ppe s’ s prior c rim e s of c onvic tion c ate goric a lly qua lifie s a s a “ c rim e of viole nc e ” unde r the re m a inde r of the de finition provide d in
se c t ion 4B 1.2(a ). Se e Unite d State s v . Se lfa , 918 F.2d 749, 751–52 (9th C ir. 1990); Unite d State s v . Potte r , 895 F.2d 1231, 1237 (9th C ir. 1990); c f . Unite d State

s v . Ruiz-Apolonio , 657 F.3d 907, 911 (9th C ir. 2011) (holding tha t a c onvic t ion unde r C a l. Pe na l C ode § 261(a)(2) is a “ c rim e of viole nc e ” unde r se c tion 2L1.2 of the
se nte nc ing guide line s). None of the c a s e s c ite d by Ste ppe s is “ c le arly irre c onc i la

ble ” with our prior opinions holding thes e c rim e s c ate goric a lly to be
c rim e s of viole nc e . M

ille r v . Gammie , 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th C i r. 2003) (e n ba nc ). II The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in ordering Steppe s’ s se nte nc e to be se rve d c onse c utive l y to these nte nc e im

pose d upon re voc at ion of his supe rvise d re le a se . The c ourt prope rly c onsulte d re le va

nt fa c t ors unde r 18 U.S.C
. § 3553(a) whe n m aking tha t de c ision. S

e e , e .g. , Unite d State

s v . Shouse , 755 F.3d 21104, 1108 (9th C ir. 2014) (upholding se nte nc e orde re d to run c onse c utive ly , in pa rt, be c a use offe n s e wa s c om

m itte d while de fe nda

nt wa s on proba

tion); Unite d State s v . Dow d , 417 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th C ir. 2005) (a ffirm ing c onse c utive
se nte nc e ba se d on distric t c o urt’ s c onc e rns ove r re c idivism ). III The gove rnm e nt c onc e de s tha t it should ha

ve m ove d to re duc e Ste ppe s’ s offe nse le ve l by

an a dditional point under se nte nc ing guide line s se c tion 3E1.1(b). W e the re fore va c ate Ste p p e s’ s se nte nc e and re m and for a re s e nte nc ing he aring, a

t whic h the gove rnm e nt will file suc h a m otion. AFFIRM E D in par t, VACAT E D in par t, and RE M ANDE D .

3