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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 2- 36 29

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

Dale Sco tt Olt en , Sr.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Mov an t - Ap

pe ll an t

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J effe rs on Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 5 , 20 14
Fil ed : M ay

15 , 20 14 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, SHEPHERD and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Thi s cas e is be fo re us on rem an d fro m th e Su pr em e Co ur t of th e Uni te d St at es

. See Olt en v. Uni te d St at es , 13 4 S. Ct

. 63 9 (2 01 3)

. The Su pr em e Co ur t gr an te d

cert io rari

, va cat ed th is co ur t’s or de r de nyin g a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y , se e Olt en

v. Uni te d St at es , No. 12 -2 62 9 (Ma r. 15

, 20 13 ), an d rem an de d th e cas e fo r fu rth erco ns id erat io n in li gh t of Des cam ps v. Uni te d St at es , 1 33 S. Ct . 2 2 7 6 (2 01 3)

. Afte r

fu rth er co ns id erat io n, we ag ai n d en y a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab li ty in t hi s ca se

.

I.

Dale Sco tt Olt en , Sr., was co nv ic te d of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , in vi ol at io n of 1 8 U

. S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ), an d of po ss es si on of a st ol en fir earm , in

vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( j). He was se nt en ced as an arm ed care er cri m in al (ACC)

un de r th e Arm e d C aree r Cri m in al Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e) (p ers on who

vi ol at es se ct io n 92 2( g) an d ha s th ree pr ev io us co nv ic ti on s fo r vi ol en t fel on y , se rio us
dr ug of fen se , or bo th

, co m

m it te d on oc cas io ns di ffer en t fro m on e an ot he r is su bjec t

to m in im um 15 -y ear p ris on ter m ). He di d no t ch al le ng e th e ACC d et erm in at io n o n
d i r e c t ap pe al

. In a 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io n, ho wev er, he cl ai m ed th at he rece iv ed

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l i n th e di st ric t cou rt and on ap pe al

, an d th at he was

se nt en ced ab ov e th e ap pl ic ab le st at ut or y m ax im um , be cau s e hi s se nt en ce un de r

se ct io n 92 4( e) was ba se d in pa rt on two pr io r bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s un de r Cal ifo rn ia

Pen al Co de § 45 9 (West 19 83 ) (“ Eve ry pe rs on who en te rs [cer ta in types of lo cat io ns ] 1

The fu ll te xt of th e Cal ifo rn ia Pen al Co de § 45 9 in e f fect whe n Olt en was 1

co nv ic te d o f bu rg la ry

in Cal ifo rn ia was:

Eve ry p ers on who en te rs an y ho us e, ro om , a pa rtment, te ne m en t, sh op , wareh ou se , s t o r e , m il l, ba rn , st ab le

, ou th ou se or ot he r bu il di ng , te nt

,
ve ss el

, rai lro ad car, t r a i l er co ach

, as de fin ed in Sect io n 63 5 of th e Veh ic le Co de , a ny h o u s e car, as de fin ed in Sect io n 36 2 of th e Veh ic le
Co de

, in ha bi te d cam

pe r, as de fin ed in Sect io n 24 3 of th e Veh ic le Co de

,
ve hi cl e as de fin ed by th e Veh ic le Co de whe n th e do or s of su ch ve hi cl e

are lo ck ed

, ai rcra ft as de fin ed by th e Harb or s an d Nav i g a t i o n Co de

,

m in e or an y un de rg ro un d po rti on th er e o f, wit h in te nt to co m m it gr an d

o r p et it la rcen y or an y fel on y is gu il ty of bu rg la ry

. As us ed in t h i s ch ap te r, “ in ha bi te d” m ean s cu rren tl y be in g us ed fo r dwe ll in g pu rp os es , whe th er o ccu pi ed or n ot

.

-2

-wit h in te nt to co m m it gr an d or pe ti t la rcen y or an y fel on y is gu il ty of bu rg la ry .”),

whi ch he m ai nt ai ne d wer e n ot vi ol en t fe lo ni es un de r se ct io n 9 24 (e).

The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e se ct io n 22 55 m ot i o n

. The co ur t rev ie wed th e
ch arg in g do cu m en ts rel at ed to Olt en ’s Cal ifo rn ia b ur gl ary co nv ic ti on s, de te rm in ed

th at th e co nv ic ti on s m et th e de fin it io n of ge ne ric bu rg la ry , a nd co nc lu de d th at th ey

qu al ifi ed as vi ol en t fel on ie s un de r se ct io n 92 4( e). In so de te rm in in g, th e di st ric t co ur t

rel ie d on ou r de ci si on in Uni te d S ta te s v . Pai nt er, 4 00 F.3d 11 11 , 11 13 -1 4 (8 th Cir

. 20 05 ) (d efi ni ti on of bu rg la ry in Cal ifo rn ia st at ut e is br oa de r th an ge ne ri c b u r g l ary
be cau s e C a l ifo rn ia st at ut e do es no t req ui re un la wfu l or un pr iv il eg ed en try in to

bui ldi ng; w he re info rm at io n ch arg ed eq ui va le nt of ge ne ric bu rg la ry , co nv ic ti on unde r
Cal ifo rn ia st at ut e was pr io r vi ol en t fel on y fo r pu rp os es of s ect io n 9 24 (e) as ne it he r pl ea ag reem en t no r pl ea co ll oq uy es ta bl is he d de fen da nt pl ead ed gu il ty to of fen se th at

was no t ge ne ric bu rg la r y)

. Th i s co ur t ag reed an d de ni ed Olt en ’s req ue st fo r a

cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y . In No ve m be r 20 13 , th e Su pr em e Co ur t gran te d Olte n’s

pe ti ti on fo r a writ of cert io rari

, va cat ed ou r pr io r jud gm en t, an d rem an de d th is m at te r

to us for fur th er co ns id erat io n i n l ig ht of i ts Ju ne 20 13 de ci si on in Desc am ps

.

II.

Hav in g co ns id ered th is m at te r in li gh t of Des cam ps , we co nc lu de th at it is no w
cl ear th at Olt en ’s two pr io r Cal ifo rn ia bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s sh ou ld no t ha ve be en us ed

to en ha nc e hi s se nt en ce un de r th e ACCA. See 13 3 S. Ct

. at 22 83 -9 3 (h ol di ng th at

se nt en ci ng co ur t m ay no t ap pl y mod ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch to se nt en ces un de r

se ct io n 92 4( e) whe n cri m e of co nv ic ti on ha s si ng le

, in d i v is ib le se t of el em en ts ;

co nc lu di ng th at , b ecau se C a l. Pen al Co de § 45 9 co nt ai ne d si ng le , i nd iv is ib le se t of

el em en ts

, se nt en ci ng co ur t erre d whe n it lo oke d at supp or tin g docum en ts to de te rm in e

Cal . Pen al Co de § 4 59 (W es t 1 98 3)

.

-3

-if ap pe ll an t’s bu rg la rie s were vi ol en t fel on ie s un de r ACCA; no ti ng th at co nv ic ti on

un de r Cal . Pen al Co de § 4 59 was “ ne ve r fo r ge ne ric bu rg la ry ”).

Alt ho ug h th e ACCA sh ou ld no t ha ve be en ap pl ie d to Olt en ’s se nt en ce, it do es

no t f o ll ow th at Olt en is ne ces sa ril y en ti tl ed to rel ie f un de r se ct io n 22 55

. In hi s

se ct i o n 22 55 m ot io n, Olt en cl ai m s (1 ) th at he rece iv ed in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of

co un se l in co nn ect io n wit h th e de te rm in at io n th at hi s Cal ifo rn ia bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s

were vi ol en t fel on ie s un de r se ct io n 92 4( e), an d ( 2 ) th at hi s se nt en ce ex ceed ed th e

st at ut or y m ax im

um th at wou ld ha ve ap pl ie d ha d he be en co rrec tl y se nt en ced wit ho ut

th e ACCA en ha nc em en t. In effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l an d rece iv in g a se nt en ce

th at ex ceed s th e m ax im

um al lo wed by la w are two gr ou nd s up on whi ch rel ie f m ay be

gr an te d un de r se ct io n 22 55

. See 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 (a) (p ris on er in cu st od y m ay m ov e

th e se nt en ci ng co ur t to va cat e, se t as id e, or co rrec t se nt en ce im po se d in vi ol at io n of

th e Co ns ti tu ti on or la ws of th e Uni te d St at es or in ex ces s of th e m ax im um au th or iz ed
by law).

W e fir st co ns id er w h et he r Olt en ’s co un se l pr ov id ed in effe ct iv e as si st an ce in

no t o b je ct in g to th e cl as si fic at io n of Olt en ’s Cal ifo rn ia bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s as
vi ol en t fel on ie s un de r se ct io n 92 4( e). At th e ti m e Olt en was se nt en ced

, t h e la w in

th is ci rcu it was se tt le d th at if th e de fen da nt was pr ev io us ly co nv ic te d of bu rg la ry in

Cal ifo rn ia an d th e ch arg in g do cu m en t es ta bl is he d t h a t th e co nv ic ti on was fo r a

ge n e r i c b u rg la ry , th e co nv ic ti on co ul d be co ns id ered a pr io r vi ol en t fel on y fo r

pu rp os es of th e ACCA. See Pai nt e r , 4 0 0 F.3 d at 11 13 -1 4. Thu s, an y ob jecti on by

co un se l at se nt en ci ng th at Olt en ’s Cal ifo rn ia bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s were no t cri m es of

vi ol en ce wou ld ha ve be en fu ti le

, an d we th eref or e co nc lu de th at co un se l co ul d no t be

co ns id ered in effe ct iv e f

o r fai li ng to so ob

ject. See Ham

be rg v. Uni te d St at es , 67 5

F.3 d 1 17 0, 11 73 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (co un se l no t in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ob ject to

co rrec t ap pl ic at io n of se tt le d la w wit hi n ci rcu it ); cf. Bro wn v. Uni te d St at es , 31 1 F.3 d

87 5, 87 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (co un se l no t in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to m ak e “ App ren di -type”

arg um en t pri or to App ren di ); Fi el ds v. Uni te d St at es , 20 1 F.3 d 10 25

, 10 27 (8 th Ci r.

-4

-20 00 ) (co un se l no t in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to rai se cl ai m on is su e whe re the re is sp li t

of au th or it y am on g ci rcu it s, bu t no Eig ht h Ci rcu it or Su pr em e Co ur t la w on su bjec t);

W ad ja v. Uni te d St at es , 64 F.3 d 38 5, 38 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (co un se l no t in effe ct iv e fo r

fai li ng to pre di ct fut ur e d ev el op m en ts in law)

.

W e ne xt tu rn to Olt en ’s cl ai m th at hi s se nt en ce on th e fel on -in -p os se ss io n

co nv ic ti on ex ceed ed th e ap pl ic ab le st at ut or y max i m um

. W e fir st no te th at

, ev en

th ou gh Olt en di d no t rai se th is cl ai m on di rect ap pe al

, he is no t fo recl os ed f r o m

rai si ng it un de r se ct i o n 22 55

. See 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 (p ris on er m ay rai se cl ai m th at

se nt en ce “ was in ex ces s of th e m ax im um au th or iz ed by la w” in m ot io n to va cat e); cf.

Ack erl an d v. Uni te d St at es , 63 3 F.3 d 69 8, 70 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (o ur c a s e s es ta bl is h

th at ot he rwis e va li d waiv er of a p p e a l or po st co nv ic ti on rig ht s do es no t pr ev en t

d efen da nt fro m at ta ck in g il le ga l se nt en ce); Uni te d St at es v. W il so n, 99 7 F.2 d 42 9,

43 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (p er cu ria m ) (wh il e de fen da nt pr oc ed ur al ly de fau lt ed Gui de li ne s
cl ai m by fail in g t o ra is e it on di rect ap pe al , hi s cl ai m th at su pe rv is ed rel eas e was in

e x c e s s of st at ut or y m ax im um was no t de fau lt ed be cau se se ct io n 22 55 ex pr es sl y

m ak es rel ie f av ai la bl e fo r se nt en ce in ex ces s of m ax im um au th or iz ed

, an d il le ga l

se nt en ce is m an ife st in

jus ti ce). Howev er, we fu rth er co nc lud e tha t— fo r th e fo ll owi ng

reas on s— Olt en is no t en ti tl ed to rel ie f fro m hi s se nt en ce on th is cl ai m , e v e n aft er

Des cam ps

.

The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Olt en to 23 5 m on th s im pr is on m en t on th e fel on in

po ss es si on of a fir earm of fen se by tre at in g Olt en a s an ACC. The co ur t im po se d a

co nc ur ren t 12 0- m on th se nt en ce on th e po ss es s i o n o f a st ol en fir earm of fen se

. At

se nt en ci ng , th e co ur t ex pr es sl y st at ed th at it was se nt en ci n g O l t e n at th e to p of hi s
ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s im

pr is on m en t ran ge of 18 8- 2 3 5 mo n t hs be cau se it vi ewed th e

fact s as ex tre m e an d be li ev ed a lo ng er se nt en ce was ap pr op ria te du e to th e th reat he

p o s e d t o th e co m

m un it y

. W e co nc lu de th at

—ev en th ou gh Olt en ’s pr io r Cal ifo rn i a
bu rg la ry co nv ic ti o n s s ho ul d no t ha ve be en us ed to en ha nc e hi s se nt en ce un de r th e ACCA, an d th e 23 5- m on th pr is on te rm on th e fel on -in -p o s s es si on co un t al on e

-5

-ex ceed ed th e 10 -y e a r st at ut or y m ax im um fo r th at co un t, se e 18 U.S.C.
§ 92 4( a)(2 )—t he sa m e 23 5- m on th se nt en ce “ co uld be re im pose d w er e [O lt en ] gr an te d

th e § 22 55 rel ie f he req ue st s” by im po si ng co ns ecu ti ve te rm s of im pr is on m en t fo r th e

two co un ts of co nv ic ti on un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 84

. See Su n Bea r v. Uni te d St at es , 64 4

F .3d 70 0, 70 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ) (“ An un la wfu l or il le ga l se nt en ce i s o n e

im po se d wit ho ut

, or in ex ces s of

, st at ut or y au th or it y .”). Hen ce, Olt en is no t en ti tl ed

to rel ie f on hi s se ct io n 22 55 m ot io n. C f

. U n i te d St at es v. Bo ss an y , 67 8 F.3 d 60 3,

60 6- 60 7 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 1 2 ) ( no ti ng il le ga l se nt en ce al on e do es no t es ta bl is h pr ejud ic e

ne ces sa ry fo r pl ai n- erro r rel ie f; h ol di ng di st ric t co ur t’s er ro r in im po si ng 90 -m on th

se nt en ce fo r co ns pi racy, whi ch ex ceed ed 60 -m on th st at ut or y m ax im um , did no t affe ct

de fen da nt ’s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s be cau se de fen da nt was se n t e nc ed to 90 m on th s on

co m pa ni on co nv ic ti on wit h 2 40 -m on th st at ut or y m ax im um ); Uni te d St at es v. Di az,

29 6 F.3 d 68 0, 68 2- 85 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (en ba nc ) (ap pl y in g pl ai n- erro r rev ie w st an da rd

in cri m in al cas e on di rect ap pe al ; ho ld in g th at

, whe re de fen da nt s were each co nv ic te d

on m ul ti pl e co un ts in vo lv in g m ul ti pl e of fen se s, th ei r “s u b s ta nt ia l rig ht s” were no t

affe ct ed ev en th ou gh th ei r res pe ct iv e se nt en ces fo r on e pa rti cu la r of fen se “ ex ceed ed

th e

. . . s ta t u t o ry m ax im

um ” fo r th at of

fen se ; reas on in g th at , “ [b ]ecaus e § 5G1 .2(d )

m an da te s co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ces in th os e cas es in whi ch th e to ta l pu ni sh m en t ex ceed s

th e st at ut or y m ax im

um fo r an y on e co un t an d th e di st ric t co ur t’s cal cu la ti on of to ta l

pu ni sh m en t is no t affe ct ed by [th e erro r in qu es ti on ], ” rem an di ng cas e to di st ric t co ur t

“ wou ld be an id le act ”).

III.

Acco rd in gl y , we aga in de ny Olt en ’s req ue st for a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y

.

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g.

I co nc ur in th e jud gm en t of th is cas e b e c a u s e w e a r e bo un d by Su n Bea r v.
Uni te d S ta te s, 6 44 F.3d 70 0 (8 th Cir . 20 11 ) (en ba nc ). I writ e se pa rat el y , ho wev er,

-6

-to ex pr es s co nc ern th at we are de nyin g rel ie f ba se d o n t h e se nt en ce a di st ric t co ur t

hypo th et ic al ly co ul d— rat he r th an di d— im po se on Dale Olt en

. The co ur t co rrec tl y

po in ts ou t th at ev en ab se nt ACC st at u s , t h e d i s t ric t co ur t co ul d st il l se nt en ce Olt en

to a to ta l se nt en ce of 23 5 m on th s by im po si ng co ns ecu ti ve te rm s of im pr is on m en t fo r

hi s two co nv ic ti on s. In do in g so , ne it he r te rm wo u l d e x c e e d th e 10 -y ear

st at u t o r y max im

um

. At th e ti m e of th e or ig in al se nt en ci ng , ho wev er, a 23 5- m on th

se nt en ce was wit hi n th e st at ut or y m ax im um se nt en ce fo r th e ACC-e n ha nc ed

fel on -in -p os se ss io n co nv ic ti on al on e; an d th e se nt en ces we r e ru n co nc ur ren tl y

. W hi le we ge ne ral ly gi ve gr eat de fere nc e to di st ric t cou rts in im po si ng se nt en ces , as

th ey are in th e su pe rio r po si ti on to m ak e “ in di vi du al iz ed as se ss m en t[s ] ba se d on th e

fact s pr es en te d,” se e, e.g ., Gall v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38

, 50 –5 2 (2 00 7)

, he re we

are co nt en t wit h sp ecu la ti ng wha t th e co ur t m ig ht do up on res en te nc in g ba se d so le ly

on wha t it co ul d do un de r it s st at ut or y au th or it y

. As ha s be en sa id pr ev io us ly, I

be li ev e th is ap pr oa ch “ pr om ot es fin al it y at th e ex pe ns e of jus ti ce.” Su n Bea r, 64 4

F.3 d at 70 7 (Me ll oy, J., di ss en ti ng ); se e al so Mei ro v i t z v

. U n i te d St at es , 68 8 F.3 d

36 9, 37 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (Bri gh t, J., co nc ur rin g) (“ The st at ut or y -m ax im um se nt en ce

can no t be th e on ly to uc hs to ne fo r whe th er or no t a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce ha s oc cu rred

at se nt en ci ng .” (ci ti ng Narv aez v. Uni te d St at es , 67 4 F.3 d 6 21

, 62 9– 30 (7 th Ci r.

20 11 )). Olt en sh ou ld no t h av e be en pl aced in th e sa m e cat eg or y as ot he rs co rrec tl y
cl as si fie d as ACC, an d co ns eq ue nt ly, de se rv es to be res en te nc ed

. See Mei ro vi tz

, 68 8

F.3 d at 37 3 (Bri gh t, J., co nc ur rin g) (d es cri bi ng th e da ng er in erro ne ou sl y cl as si fy in g

an in di vi du al as a care er of f e n d e r , ev en if ab se nt th e cl as si fic at io n th e se nt en ci ng

gu id el in e ran ge rem ai ns th e sa m e).

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

-7

-