0 7 -2 2 3 4 -cr U ni t ed St at es v. W ai t he UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER RU L I NG S B Y S UMM AR Y OR DE R DO N OT HA VE P RE CE DE NT I AL E F F ECT . C I T AT I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED ON OR A FT ER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P ERM I TTED AND I S GO VERN ED BY FE DERA L RULE OF APP ELLATE P RO CEDU RE 3 2 . 1 AND THI S COUR T’ S LOCAL RULE 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A D O C U M EN T F I LED W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T CI TE E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L A P P E ND I X OR A N E LE CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON “ S UM M ARY ORD ER” ) . A P ARTY C I TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S ERVE A C OP Y OF I T ON ANY PARTY NO T REPRES ENTED BY CO UNSEL. A t a s tate dterm o f th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e S e c o n dC irc u it, h e ld atthe D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C ourthous e, 500 Pear l Str eet , i n the C i ty of N ew Y ork, on the 19 day of M ay, tw o thous and t en. th P R E S E N T : R E E N A R A G G I,

RI CH AR D C . W E S L E Y, PETE R W . HA LL,

C i r cui tJudges .

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ----- UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Appellee , v. N o. 07- 2234- cr NAC M I CH AEL D . W AI THE, D ef endant

-Appellant .

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ----- FO R A PPE L L A N T : K i m P. B ons tr om , B ons tr om & M urphy, Shel t erI s l and, N ew Y ork. FO R A PPE L L E E : K athl een M . M ehl tr ett er , U ni t ed St at es A tt orney, J os eph J . K ar as zew s ki , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A tt orney, W es t ern D i s tr i ctof

N ew Y ork, B uf

f al o, N ew Y ork. A p p ea l f rom the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfor th e S o u thern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (W illia m M . S k re tn y , Judge ). UP ON DUE CONS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJUDGE D, AND2

D E C R E E D thatthe j udgm entent er ed o n M ay 21 , 2007, is V A C A T E D , an dth e c a se is RE M ANDE D. D ef endantM i chael D aC os t a W ai the w as convi ct ed, af t era j ury tr i al , of

att empt ed entry i nt o the U ni t ed St at es af t erhavi ng been de port ed f ora n a ggr avat ed f

el ony convi ct i on. S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(a) . H e no w app eal s f rom his sent ence o f sixty-three m on ths’ im p riso n m e n t an dth re e y e a rs’ su p e rv ise dre lea se . W e a ss u m e th e p a rties ’ fa m ili a rity w ith the fact s and record of pri or proceedings. I n denyi ng both counse l ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw pur s uantt o A nder s v. C al i f orni a, 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) , and the governm ent ’ s m ot i on f ors um m ary af

f i rm ance , w e o rder ed the part i es t o br i ef

the i s s ue of

w hetherW ai the’ s pr i ore s cape c onvi ct i on unde r18 U . S. C . § 751 con st i tutes a “cri m e o f vi olence” tr i gg eri ng a si xteen- l evel enhan cem ent i n W ai the’s of fense le v e l u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 (b )( 1 )( A )( ii) . T h e p a rt ie s n o w a g re e th a t it d o e s n o t. S ect i on 2 L 1. 2(b)( 1)( A )( i i ) defi nes a “cri m e o f vi olence” as, int er al i a, “an y . . . off ense underf eder al , s t at e, orl ocall aw thathas as an el ementthe us e, att empt ed us e, orthr eat ened u se o f p h y sical fo rce a g ains t th e p erso n o f an o ther.” U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1 . 2 (b)(1 ), cm t. n . 1 (B )(i ii ). T h e fed era l esc ap e statute, 18 U . S . C . § 7 5 1 , co n tai n s n o su ch elem en t. A t th e g o v ern m en t’ s u rgin g , the d istri ct co u rt re li ed o n C an ad a v . G o n za les, 4 4 8 F . 3 d5 6 0 , 5 7 0 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), w her e thi s courtnot ed thates cape i s a cr i m e of vi ol ence und er18 U . S. C . § 16( b) . T hat defi nit i on i s broade r, how ever, than the rel evan tG uidel i nes defi nit i on becau se italso i ncl udes a cr i m e that“by i t s natur e, i nvol ves a subs t ant i al ri s k thatphysi calfor ce a gai ns tthe per s on orpr operty of

anotherm ay be used in the cour s e of comm i tt i ng the of

f ens e. ” 183

U . S. C . § 16( b) . W hi l e W ai the’s es cape i nher ent l y i nvol ved a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of phys i cal fo rc e , the c rim e o f c o n v ictio n d idn o t co n tain ap h y sic a l fo rc e e lem e n t. A ccor di ngl y, w e ar e obl i ged t o i dent i f y pr ocedur al err ori n the cha l l enged s ent ence . See G al l v. U ni t ed St at es , 552 U . S. 38, 51 ( 2007) (i ns truct i ng appeal s court s t o “ens ur e that the di str i ctcourtcomm i tt ed no s i gni f i cantpr ocedur al err or , s uch as f ai l i ng t o cal cul at e ( or i m pr oper l y c al cul at i ng) the G ui del i nes r ange” ) ; a ccor d U ni t ed St at es v. J ones , 531 F. 3d 163, 170 ( 2d C i r . 2008) . W e do no t , h ow ever , f or ecl os e the di s tr i ctcourtf r om cons i der i ng W a ith e ’s e sc ap e in its re v iew o f fa c to rs p u rsu a n t t o 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) o r in its di s cr et i onary deci s i on w hethert o i m pos e a non- G ui del i nes s ent ence . W e, ther ef

or e, V A C A T E the s ent ence and R E M A N D f orr e- s ent enci ng cons i s t ent w ith this ord er. FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt