# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 38 86

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

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ran da ll Ty

rel l St eward , als o k no wn as Ran da ll Ste wart , als o k no wn as Trou bl e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ 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 Ark an sa s - F ay et te vi ll e

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 18 , 20 17 Fil ed : J an ua ry

25 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re COLLOTON, BENTO N, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Ran da ll St eward pl ead ed gu il ty to se x tra ffi ck in g of a ch il d in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 15 91

. At se nt en ci ng , St eward ob jecte d to va rio us as pe ct s of th e pr es en te nc e
rep or t. The di st ric t co ur t su st ai ne d s o m e ob jecti on s, bu t ov erru le d St eward ’s 1

Th e Hon or ab le Tim ot hy L. Bro ok s, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r t h e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.ob

jecti on to th e cat eg or iz at io n of hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on fo r Ok l ah om a vo lu nt ary

m an sl au gh te r, se e Okl a. St at

. ti t. 21
, § 71 1( 2)
, as a cri m e of vi ol en ce. Usi ng th e 2
Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (USSG) in effe ct at th e ti m e of se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d St eward qu al ifi ed as a care er of fen de r un de r USSG § 4B 1.1

. The ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge was 15 1– 18 8 m on th s , a n d t he di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced
St eward to 15 1 m on th s of im pr is o n men t

. S t eward ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at hi s pr io r

vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r co nv ic ti on is no t a c rime of v io le nc e.

“ W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n a n d a pp li cat io n of th e
gu id el in es .” Uni te d St at es v

. Ri ce, 81 3 F.3 d 70 4, 70 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). Gen eral ly, di st ric t co ur ts sh ou ld ap pl y th e Gui de li ne s “ th at are ‘in ef f e c t o n t he da te th e de fen da nt is se nt en ced .’ ” Peu gh v. Uni te d St at es , 56 9 U.S. 53 0, 53 7– 38 (2 01 3) (q uo ti ng 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(4 )(A)(i i)) . Howev er, whe n th e Gui de li ne s h av e b een

am en de d si nc e th e of

fen s e o c c u r red su ch th at ap pl ic at io n of th e ne w Gui de li ne s

The Okl ah om a st a t u t e do es no t la be l th e va rio us types of fir st -d eg ree 2

m an sl au gh te r de fin ed in § 71 1. Howe v e r , i t i s c le ar fro m th e st at ut e th at each

su bs ect io n de sc rib es a se pa rat e of fen se wit h di st in ct , no n- ov erl ap pi ng el em en ts

. Cf. Mat hi s v. Uni te d St at es , 13 6 S. Ct

. 22 43
, 22 48 (2 01 6) (d es cri bi ng a st at ut or y pr ov is io n th at “ de fin e[s ] a si ng le cri m e”). The rel ev an t de fin it io n in t h i s
cas e—c on ta in ed in § 71 1( 2) —“ is si m il ar to ” t h e f e d eral of fen se of vo lu nt ary

m an sl au gh te r, de fin ed in 18 U

. S

. C

. § 11 12

. See In re Okl a. Uni f. Ju ry In st

. fo r Ju ve ni le Cas es , 11 6 P.3 d 11 9, 14 8 (Me m ) (Ok la

. 20 05 ); Cam pb el l v. St at e, 63 6 P.2 d 35 2, 35 7 n.1 (Ok la

. Cri m

. App

. 19 81 ) (“ The di st in ct io n be twee n m ur d e r an d

vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r is fo un d in th e di vi di ng li ne be twee n m al ic io us act io n on th e
on e ha nd an d act io n in th e he at of pa ss io n on th e ot he r

. . . .”); Mo rg an v. Stat e, 53 6 P.2 d 95 2, 95 4, 95 9 (Ok la

. Cri m

. App

. 19 75 ) (d es cri bi ng vo lu nt ar y man s l a ug ht er),

ov erru le d on ot he r gr ou nd s by Wal to n v. St at e, 74 4 P.2 d 97 7 (Ok la

. Cri m

. App

. 19 87 ); se e al s o B r o w n v. St at e, 77 7 P.2 d 13 55
, 13 57 (Ok la

. Cri m

. App

. 19 89 ) (ref erri ng to “ he at of pa ss io n fir st de gr ee m an sl au gh te r”). Lik ewis e, § 71 1( 1) de sc rib es “ m is de m ean or m an sl au gh te r,” St at e v. Cea sa r, 23 7 P.3 d 79 2, 79 4 (Ok la

. Cri m

. App

. 20 10 ), an d § 71 1( 3) de sc rib es “ man s l a u g ht er by res is ti ng cri m in al at te m pt ,” Dav is v. St at e, 26 8 P .3d 86 , 11 6 (Ok la . Cri m . App . 20 11 ).

-2

-res ul ts in a hi gh er s en te nc in g ra ng e, th e co ur t s ho ul d a pp ly t he Gui de li ne s i n e ffec t

at th e ti m e of th e of

fen se , s o as no t to vi ol at e th e Ex Pos t Fa ct o Cla us e. Id . a t 53 8. Here, th e de fin it io n of cri m e of vi ol en ce in USSG § 4B 1.2 was am en de d be twee n th e ti m e St eward co m

m it te d h is off

en se an d t he ti m e of hi s sen te nc in g. As a res ul t, we

m us t ex am in e bo th th e 20 15 an d 20 16 ve rs io ns of th e Gui de li ne s. If St eward ’s pr io r of fen se wou ld qu al ify as a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r bo th ve rs io ns , th ere can be no Ex
Pos t Fa ct o Cla us e v io la ti on an d we m us t af fir m

.

In 20 15
, th e de fin it io n of cri m e of vi ol en ce in th e Gui de li ne s in cl ud ed th e sa m e

“ res id ua l cl au se ” as di d th e de fin it io n of vi ol en t fel on y in th e Arm ed Care er Cri m in al
Act (ACCA): “ an of

fen se th at ‘inv ol ve s co nd uc t th at pr es en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ris k of ph y si cal in

jury to an ot he r.’” Bec kl es v. Uni te d St at es , 13 7 S. Ct

. 88 6, 89 0 (2 01 7) (q uo ti ng USSG § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2) (No v. 20 06 )). Afte r th e Su pr em e C o u r t he ld th e

res id ua l cl au se to be u n c o n s ti tu ti on al ly va gu e in th e co nt ex t of th e ACCA, se e Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 13 5 S. Ct

. 25 51
, 25 57 (2 01 5)
, th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on

am en de d th e Gui de li ne s, rem ov in g th e res id ua l cl au se an d ad di ng m or e en um erat ed of fen se s. See USSG Su pp

. App

. C, Am en d. 79 8 (eff ect iv e Aug us t 1, 20 16 ).
Su bs eq ue nt ly, ho wev er, in Bec kl es , th e Co ur t he ld th at th e Gui de li ne s are no t su bjec t
to va gu en es s ch al le ng es , th ereb y co nf irming th e va li di ty of th e res id ua l cl au se un de r th e p re-2 01 6 Gu id el in es . 13 7 S . Ct. at 89 0.

W e are pe rs ua de d th at Okl ah om a vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r qu al ifi es as a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” un d e r t he 20 15 Gui de li ne s. Alt ho ug h th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed

“ wit ho ut do ub t” t h a t t he of fen se sa ti sf

ie d § 4B 1.2 (a)( 1) —t he “ fo rce cl au se ”—we

ne ed no t m ak e a fo rce- cl au se de te rm in at io n be cau se we co nc lu de th at Okl ah om a

vo lu nt ary man s l au gh te r qu al ifi es as a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r th e res id ua l cl au se

. Und er th e 20 15 Gui de li ne s, th e res id ua l cl au se was acco m pa ni ed by co m

m en ta ry th at

co nt ai ne d il lu st rat iv e ex am pl es of o f

f e n s es th at m et it s “ se rio us po te nt ia l ris k of ph y si cal in

jury to an ot he r” te st

. Man sl au gh te r was on e of th e of fen se s con ta in ed in th at li st

. See USSG § 4B 1.2
, cm t., n.1 (No v. 20 15 ) (“ ‘Crim e of vi ol en ce’ in cl ud es

. . .

-3

-m an sl au gh te r

. . . .”). The S u p r em e Co ur t ha s ex pl ai ne d th at “ co m m en ta ry in th e Gui de li ne s Man ua l th at in te rp ret s or ex pl ai ns a gu id e l i n e is au th or it at iv e un le ss it vi ol at es th e Co ns ti tu ti on or a fed era l s ta tu te , or is in co ns is te nt wit h, or a pl ai nl y

erro ne ou s read in g of

, th at gu id el in e.” S t i n s on v. Uni te d St at es , 50 8 U.S. 36
, 38 (1 99 3)

. Thu s, un de r th e 20 15 Gui de li ne s, m an sl au gh te r is effe ct iv el y an en um erat ed of fen se

. See Uni te d St at es v. Kos m es , 79 2 F.3 d 97 3, 97 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (rel y in g on th e co m m en ta ry to USSG § 2L1 .2(b )(1 ) to de t e r mi n e th at m an sl au gh te r was an

en um erat ed of

fen se ); cf. Bec kl es , 1 37 S. Ct . at 8 97 (Gin sb ur g, J ., c on cu rri ng in th e jud gme n t ) ( e xp la in in g th at Bec kl es ’s as -ap pl ie d ch al le ng e sh ou ld fai l be cau se hi s
pr io r co nv ic ti on was “ ex pr es sl y de si gn at ed ” as a cri m e of vi o l e n c e b y th e of fic ia l

co m m en ta ry ).

The refo re, we fo ll ow th e cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch
, lo ok in g to se e “ whe th er th e
st at e st at ut e de fin in g” vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r “ cat eg or ic al ly fit s with in th e ge ne ric fed eral de fin i t io n of a co rres po nd in g cri m e of vi ol en ce.” Kos m es , 7 92 F.3 d at 97 5 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ro bl ero -R a mi rez, 71 6 F.3 d 11 22
, 11 25 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 )).

“ [A] st at e of

fen se is a cat e g o r i c a l match wit h a ge ne ric fed eral of fen se on ly if a

co nv ic ti on of th e st at e of fen se ne c e s sa ril y in vo lv ed fact s eq ua ti ng to th e ge ne ric fed eral of

fen se .” Id

. (q uo ti ng Mo nc rie ffe v. Hol de r, 56 9 U.S. 18 4, 19 0 (2 01 3) ) (cl ean ed up ). “ By ‘gen eri c’ fed eral de fin it io n of [v ol un ta ry m an sl au gh te r], we m ean

3
th e ‘sen se in whi ch th e te rm is no w us ed in th e cri m in al co de s o f m os t St at es .’ ” Id

. at 97 6 (q uo ti ng Ro bl ero -Ram ire z, 71 6 F .3d at 1 12 5) ).

“ Cl eaned up” is a ne w pa ren th et ic al us ed to el im in at e un ne ces sa ry ex pl an at io n 3 of no n- su bs ta nt iv e pr io r al te rat io ns

. See Ja ck M e t zl er, Cl ean in g Up Quo ta ti on s, J. App . P rac. & Pro ces s (fo rth co m in g 20 18 ), ht tp :/ /d x.d oi .org /1 0.2 1 39 /s sr n.2 93 53 74

. Thi s pa ren th et ic al can be us ed wh e n ex tra ne ou s, res id ua l, no n- su bs ta nt iv e in fo rm at io n h a s be en rem ov ed
, in th is cas e, in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s, br ack et s, ad di ti on al qu ot in g pa ren th et ic al s an d an el li ps is

. See al so Uni te d St at es v. Reyes, 86 6 F.3 d 3 16 , 32 1 (5 th Cir . 20 17 ).

-4

-Okl ah om a’s cri m in al co de de fin es th e of fe n s e of m an sl au gh te r th ro ug h th e i n t e r s e c t i on of th ree st at ut or y pr ov is io ns

. Fi rs t, ho m ic id e is de fin ed as “ th e ki ll in g of on e hu m an be in g by an ot he r.” Okl a. St a t

. t i t

. 2 1
, § 69 1( A). Hom ic id e is th en di vi de d in to fo ur m

ut ua ll y -ex cl us iv e cat eg or ie s: m ur de r, m an sl au gh te r, ex cu sa bl e ho m ic id e, or jus ti fia bl e ho m ic id e. Id

. § 69 2. Each of th os e cat eg or ie s is su bs eq ue nt ly de fin ed
, an d vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r—a fu rth er su bs et of m an sl au gh te r—i s de fin ed

as “ [h ]om ic id e

. . . p e r p e t r at ed wit ho ut a de si gn to effe ct de at h, an d in a he at of

pa ss io n, bu t in a cru el an d un us ua l m a n n e r , o r by m ean s of a da ng ero us weap on .” 4
Id

. § 71 1( 2)

. Thu s, we m

us t de te rm in e whe th er th is co m po un d de fin it io n of vo lu nt ary

m an sl au gh te r fit s wit hi n th e “ ge ne ric fed eral de fin it io n” of m an sl au gh te r. See
Kos m es , 79 2 F .3d at 9 75

.

In Kos m es , we tu rn ed to th e Mo de l Pen al Co de fo r pe rs ua si ve ev id en ce of wha t

co ns ti tu te d “ ge ne ric fed eral m an sl au gh te r,” be cau se “ th e Mo de l Pen al Co de pr ov id es
t h e be st ge ne ric
, co nt em po rary, an d m od ern de fin it io n, [an d] ha s be en wid el y ad op te d.” Id

. at 97 7 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Pet ers on , 62 9 F.3 d 43 2, 43 6 (4 th Ci r. 20 11 )). W e di d so b e c a u s e th e cri m e wit h whi ch we were co nc ern ed
, Gua m in vo lu nt ary (o r reck le ss ) m an sl au gh te r, tra ck ed th e Mo de l Pen al Co de ex act ly.
Co m pa r e 9 Gua m Co de Ann

. § 16 .50 a)(1 ) (“ Cri m in al ho m ic id e co ns ti tu te s

m an sl au gh te r whe n

. . . it is co m m it te d reck le ss ly

. . . . ” ) wit h Mo de l Pen al Co de § 21 0.3 (1 )(a) (s am e). Howev er, Kos m es ad dr es se d an is su e no t rel e v a n t t o th is

ap pe al
, as th e d e f

e n d a n t th ere rai se d a th en -u nd eci de d qu es ti on ab ou t whe th er a

m an sl au gh te r s t a t u t e t h at on ly req ui red a m en s rea of reck le ss ne ss co ul d qu al ify as a cri m e o f vi ol en ce. 7 92 F.3d at 9 76 –7 8.

Bec au se th ey on ly se rv e to na rro w th e sc op e of th e of fen se , bo th of th e li st ed 4 al te rn at iv es —“ in a cru el a n d u n u s ua l m an ne r” an d “ by m ean s of a da ng ero us weap on ”—d o no t ne ed to be an al y zed un de r Mat hi s, 13 6 S. Ct

. at 22 51 (co nt ras ti ng

“ el em en ts ” an d “ m ean s” ).

-5

-St eward ’s cas e, on th e ot he r ha nd
, pr es en ts a di ffer e n t qu es ti on

. Thi s is

be cau se —u nl ik e in vo lu n t a ry m an sl au gh te r, whi ch m os t of te n oc cu rs whe n th e de fen da nt la ck s th e req ui si te m en ta l st at e to co m m it ho m ic id e, se e W ay

ne R. LaFav e, Su bs ta nt iv e Cri m in al Law § 15

. 4 ( a ) ( d i sc us si ng th e le ss er m en s rea req ui red to

co m m it in vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r)— vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r fu nc ti on s m or e li ke a
pa rt ia l de fe nse to m

ur de r, de sc rib in g co nd uc t un de rta ke n in te nt io na ll y bu t in the “ he at of pa ss io n.” See LaFav e § 15 .2(a ) n.7 & acco m pa nyin g te xt (ci ti ng , in te r al ia
, Okl a. St at

. ti t. 21
, § 71 1) ; se e al so Dav is
, 26 8 P.3 d at 11 1 (d es cri bi ng m an s l a u gh te r as a

“ de fen se ”). W hi le t h e maj o r it y of st at es co nt in ue to fo ll ow th is co m m on la w de fin it io n, se e LaFav e § 15 .2(a ), th e Mo de l Pen al Co de ha s m od ern iz ed th e la ng ua ge , refe rri ng to “ a ho m ic id e whi ch wou ld ot he rwis e be m ur de r [th at ] is co m

m it te d un de r th e in flu en ce o f ex tre m e m en ta l o r em ot io na l d is tu rb an ce . . . .” Mo de l Pe na l Co de § 21 0.3 (1 )(b ). Fo r ou r pu rp os es , th is li n g ui st ic up da te , fro m “ he at of pa ss io n” to

“ ex tre m e m en ta l or em ot io na l di st ur ba nc e,” m ak es no di ffer en ce. Hav in g ex am in ed Okl ah om a cas e la w, we di sc ern no th in g in th e st at e’s ap pl ic at io n an d an al y si s of th e

vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r st at ut e th at de m on st rat es it de pa rts in an y meani ng fu l way fro m th e “ ge ne ric fed eral de fin it io n,” an d St eward pr ov id es no ne

. W e fu rth er no te , 5 by way of co nf

irmatio n, th at Okl ah o ma’ s s t a t u te is al m os t id en ti cal to th e fed eral

Okl ah om a’s st at ut e do es co nt ai n th e ad di ti on al req ui rem en t th at the de fe nda nt 5 ha ve act ed “ wit ho ut a de si gn to effe ct de at h.” Okl a. St at

. ti t. 21
, § 71 1( 2)

. Howev er,
ou r rev ie w of th e cas e la w in di cat es th at th at la ng ua ge ha s be en in te rp ret ed to fu rth er
em ph as iz e th e ne ces sa ry le ve l of “ pa ss io n” fo r th is qu as i-d efen se to ap pl y —i n ot he r
wor ds
, to do wng rad e th e of fen se fro m m

ur de r—r at he r th an as a se pa rat e or ad di ti on al el em en t. See Dav is
, 28 6 P.3 d at 11 1 ( “Th e h e at of pa ss io n m us t ren de r th e m in d in cap ab le of fo rm in g a de si gn to effe ct de at h be fo re th e de fen se of m an sl au gh te r is

es ta bl is he d.” ) (ci ti ng All en v. St at e, 82 1 P.2 d 37 1, 37 4 (Ok la

. Cri m

. App

. 19 91 )); Eize m be r v. St at e, 16 4 P.3 d 20 8, 23 6 (O k l a

. Cri m

. App

. 20 07 ) (“ The ‘pas si on ’

ne ces sa ry to su pp or t a m an sl au gh te r in st ru ct io n m us t be so g r e a t as to ‘rend er th e

m in d in cap ab le of fo rm in g a de si g n t o effe ct de at h.’” (q uo ti ng Ch arm v. St at e, 92 4 P.2 d 75 4, 76 0 (Ok la . C rim. App . 1 99 6) )); se e al so Bry so n v . W ard , 1 87 F.3 d 11 93
, 12 08 (10 th Cir . 19 99 ) (ci ti ng Ch arm , 92 4 P .2d at 7 60 for th e sa m e p ro po si ti on ).

-6

-cri m e o f “ vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r.” See 18 U.S.C. § 11 12 (a) (“ Man sl au gh te r is th e

u nl awfu l ki ll in g of a hu m an be in g wit ho ut m al ic e

. . . . [u ]pon a su dd e n q u a r r e l o r he at of p as si on .”); see als o Ok la . Uni f. Ju ry Ins t., 1 16 P.3d at 1 48

.

Okl ah om a m an sl au gh te r al so qu al ifi es as a cri m e of vi ol en ce u nd er t he 20 16 Gui de li ne s— whi ch
, as of Aug us t 1, 20 16
, m ad e vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r an ex pl ic it ly

en um erat ed of

fen se

. USSG § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2) (Au g. 20 16 ). W e ha ve al read y de te rm in ed th at Okl ah om a vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r sa ti sf ie s t he “ ge ne ric fed eral de fin it io n” of

m an sl au gh te r. Thu s, be cau se Okl ah om a vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r qu al ifi es as a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r bo th ve rs io ns of th e Gui de li ne s, the re is no Ex Pos t Fact o Cl au se is su e as to Ste ward ’s sen te nc e, an d h e was pro pe rly sen te nc ed as a care er o ffen de r.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-7

-