### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 11276

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v.
C U R T IS L E E E L L IS D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he N or t her n D i st r i c t of Texas

B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , E L R O D , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P A T R IC KE
. H IG G IN B O T H A M , C i rcui t Ju dg e: O n Sep t em ber 4, 200 7, Ju dg e L yn n of t h e U n i t ed Stat es D i st ri ctC ou rtf or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas accepted defen da n t -a p p e ll a n t C u rt i s Lee E l l i s’ gui l t y pl ea as t o t hre e c ount s of bank r obbe r y i n v i olat i on o f 18 U
. S. C

. § 2113. P revi ou sl y, E l l i s had been convi ct ed of com m o n la w robbery an d att em pted
com m on l a w rob b ery i n N orth C a roli n a , le a d in g th e p rob a ti on off i cer to
r e c o m m e nd a c ar e e r o f fe nde r e nhan c e m e ntund e r Fe de r alSe nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne § 4 B 1. 1. App l i ed t hi s en h a n cem ent , t he di st r i c t c our t s ent enc ed hi m t o 1 68
m o n th s o f im p r is o n m e n t. E llis a p p e a ls h is s e n te n c e o n th e g r o u n d s t h a t h is p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n f

o r a t t e mp t e d c o mmo n l a w r o b b e r y d o e s n o t q u a l i f y a s a “ c r i me United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 26, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 11276

SeeU .S .S .G. § 4 B 1 .1 (b)( C); see a lso 1 8U .S .C

. § 2 1 1 3 (a). 1 Without this e nhanceme nt, his totaloffe nse level would have b een 22, for a Guideline s 2 se nte nceo f 8 4 -1 0 5mo nth s. 2 of vi ol en ce” un der § 4B 1. 2 becau se N ort h C arol i n a broad ly d e fin es t h e t erm “a tt e m p te d .” W e co n c lu d e th a t E llis h a s fo r fe ite d th e rig h t t o ch a lle n g e th is pote n tia l e rr o r i n t h e use of t h e N ort h C arol i n a conv i ct i on by fai l i n g t o obj ect bef or e t he di st r i c t c our t
. W e o f fera f ul lnar r at i ve of

t he pat h E l l i s w oul d have
u s t ravel , al lw i t h ou tan y w h i sper of i t u tte re d i n t h e di st ri ctcourt
. D oi n g so poi n t s t ow ard the l arge i n t erestsuch a n un dertaki n g w ou l d tr am pl e. I T h e di st ri ctcourtsust ai n ed E l l i s’onl y t w o chal l en ges to the P resentence R e p o r t, r e fu s in gto a p p ly e n h a n c e m e n ts fo r a “t h r e a t o f d e a th ” a n d “b o d ily i nj ur y. ” Thi s w o r ke d no c hang e i n El l i s ’fi n al sen t e nc i ng r ang e b e c aus e t he
c our t f ound E l l i s t o b e a c ar ee r of fenderand enh ance d u nder G ui del i ne § 4B 1. 1, pre di c at ed o n pre vi ous “ c r i m es of vi ol enc e. ” Th i s s etE l l i s' s t ot alof fens e l eve lat 29 a f t er a t h ree- poi n tadj u st m en t f o r a cc e p t an ce of

res pon sibi l i t y. C ou pl ed 1
w i t h hi s c r i m i nalhi st or y c at ego r y o f V I , hi s se nt enc i n g ra nge w as 151–18 8
m on t h s. 2 D e s p ite th e fa c t t h a t E llis ’cr im in a l h is to r y w a s th e m o s t s a lie n t fa c to rin h i s s en t en ce, t h e P S R ’ s t reat m en t of i t w en t u n cha l l en ged
. T h e P S R groun ded t h e careerof

fen der enh an cem en t i n E ll is' s con vi ct i on s i n N ort h C arol i n a f or c om m on l aw r obbe r y and at t em pt ed c om m on l aw r obbe r y, f i ndi ng t hem t o b e

“ cri m es of

vi ol en ce” un der t h e G u i del i n es. U n der G u i del i n e § 4B 1. 1( a) , a career of fen der enh an cem en tapp l i es i f, i n t er al i a, “ t h e defenda n t ha s atl east t w o pri or fe lo n y co n v ic tio n s o f e ith e r a cr im e o f v io le n c e o r a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e o ffe n s e .”N o. 07- 11276

SeeU .S

. v . Mo or e, 2 2 3F
. App 'x4 2 2 , 4 2 4 , 2 0 0 7WL9 5 4 3 2 3 , ** 1 (5 th C ir
. Mar. 2 0 0 7). 3 U .S .S .G. § 4 B 1 .2 (a). 4 Id

. § 4 B 1 .2c mt
. n .1
. 5 3 E l l i s ac cep ts t h a t t h i s cou rt ha s h eld th a t com m on l a w ro b b e r y u n d er N orth C a r o lin a la w is a cr im e o f v io le n c e a s d e fin e d b y § 4 B 1 .2
. B u t h e u r g e s th a t in 3 N o r th C a r o lin a , att empte dr obbe r y i s nota c r i m e o f vi ol enc e b ec ause s t at e l aw d e fin e s th a t o ffe n s e — s p e c ific a lly th e “o v e r t a c t ” r e q u ir e m e n t— m o r e b r o a d ly t h an m ostot h er s t ates. G ui del i ne 4B 1. 1( a) def i nes a c ar ee r of

fenderas ( 1) one w ho i s ei ght ee n at t h e t i m e he com m i t t ed the current of fen se, ( 2) w h i ch m u stbe a fel on y t h at i s a cri m e o f viol en ce ora contr ol l ed su bstance of fen se, an d ( 3) t h e of fen der m u st h ave tw o p re v ious convi ct i on s t h at fal li n t o ei t h er of t h ose c ategori es. Sect i on 4B 1. 2 defi n es “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” as a cr i m e p u n ish a bl e by i m pri sonm en t f or a t erm great er t h an one yea r t h at “ h as as an el em en t t h e u se, att em pted u se, or t h reat en ed u se of

ph ysi calfor ce ag ai n stthe person of a n ot h er, or i s a b u rgl ary of a dw el l i n g, arson, or extor t i on , i n vol ves use of expl osive s, or ot h erw i se i n vo l ve s con d u ct t h a t pre sen ts a ser i ou s p oten ti a l ri sk of p h ys i ca li nj u ry to
an ot h er. ” Th e app l i cat i on notes provi de f u rt h er def

i n i t i on algu i da n ce: 4

“ C r i m e o f

vi ol enc e” i ncl udes m urde r , m ansl aught er , ki dnapi ng, ag gr av at e d a s s aul t , f o r c i bl e s e x o f

f e ns e s , r o bb e r y, ar s o n, e xt o r t i o n, extor t i on ate ext en si on of credi t , a n d bu rgl ary of a dw el l i n g. O t h er of fens es are i ncl uded as “c r i m es of vi ol enc e” i f

(A ) thatof

fens e has as an el em entt he use , at t em pt ed us e, or t hre at ened us e o f physi c al fo r c e a g a in s t t h e p e r s o n o f a n o th e r , o r ( B ) th e co n d u c t s e t fo r th (i.e ., expressl y c harge d) i n t he c ount of w hi c h t he def

endant w as c onvi c t ed i nvol ved use of ex pl osive s ( i ncl udi ng any ex pl os i ve m at e r i alo r de s t r uc t i ve de vi c e ) o r , byi t s na t ur e , pr e s e nt e d a s e r i o us potenti alri sk of

ph ysi cali nj u ry t o an ot h er. 5N o. 07- 11276

Id

. 6 SeeU .S

. v . De ntl er , 4 9 2 F .3 d 3 0 6 , 3 1 3( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 7). 7 SeeU.S. v. Dominguez -Ochoa, 386F .3d 6 39, 642–43(5th Cir. 2 004) (“T aylor instructs 8 that whe re, a s he re, the enh anc ementprovision does not specifically defin e th e e nume rate d offen se, we must defineitac cordingto its ‘ ge neric, co ntempo rarymeanin g' and should r elyon a unifo rm definition, regardl ess of the ‘label s employe d by the variou s States' crimin al codes.’”) (quo tin g T aylor v . U. S. , 4 9 5U .S

. 5 7 5 , 5 9 8 , 5 9 2 ( 1 9 9 0))

. 4 F i n a l l y , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n n o t e s a l s o i n c l u d e w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f

c r i me of viol en ce “th e offen ses o f aid i n g a n d ab etti n g, con sp i ri n g, an d attem p ti n g to
c o m m it s u c h o ffe n s e s .” 6 A s t h i s d ef

i n i t i on su ggests , a cri m e m ay fal lw i t h i n one of t h e enu m erat ed
c at e go r i e s , o r w i t hi n t he o ne o f t he t w o ge ne r al pr o vi s i o ns , t he f i r s t r e qui r i ng t he predic ate c ri m e t o ha ve as “an el em en tt h e use, att em pted u se, or t h reat en ed u se o f ph ysi ca lf

o r c e a ga i ns tt he pe r s o n o f a no t he r , ” a nd t he s e c o nd r e qui r i ng t he pri orc r i m e t o i nvol ve expl os i ves or “by i t s nat ure ” t o pr es ent“ a s er i ous pot ent i al ri sk of physi c ali nj ury t o a not her
. ” El l i s ar gues t hat hi s c onvi c t i on i n N orth 7 C arol i n a f

or at t em pted com m on l aw robbery does n ot fal l w i t h i n t h e enu m erat ed cat egory of

robbery ( defi n ed to i n cl u de att em pted robbery) , or w i t h i n ei t h er of t h e t w o cat ch-al lprovi si on s. T h e G u i d eli n es d o n ot d efi n e “attem p t” or “rob b ery , ” l ea vin g th a t t a sk to t h e court s. Th i s c ou rtuses a com m on sense app roach to determ i n e if a pri or convic t i on i s cat egori cal l y an en u m erat ed of fen se, deci di n g w h et h er an of fen se i s at t em pted robbery acco rd in g t o i t s or di n ary, contem porary, an d com m on
m e ani ng. I n T

aylor , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t d e f i n e d b u r g la r y u s in g“t h e g e n e r ic 8N o. 07- 11276

495 U.S . at 598; see als o U.S . v. Fierro- Reyna, 466 F.3d 324, 327 (5th Cir. 2006) (“To 9 estab lishth e gen eric contemporary meaning of an enumerated offense, we con sider, inter alia , the Mod elPenal C ode, Professors L aF ave's and Scott' s treatises, mo dern state codes, and dictio n ari es .”).

See Dominguez -Ochoa, 386F .3d at 6 46. 10 Moore , 22 3 F . App’xat42 2. 11 Id . at42 3 (quotin

g U.S. v. Santiesteban -Hernandez , 46 9 F .3d 3 76, 380(5th Cir. 12 200 6)) (alt er atio ninoriginal) (internalquotation marks omitted). In San ties te ban-Hernande z, the court noted that “ The ma jo rityof states require property to b e taken from aper son or a person’s pre sencebymeans of forc e o r puttin g in fear.” 46 9 F .3d at 3 80.

Id . at42 4 (quoting St atev . P ark er , 3 6 9S .E .2 d 5 9 6 , 6 0 0(N. C

. 1 9 8 8))

. 13 Id

. 14 5 s e ns e i n whi c h t he t e r m i s no w us e d i n t he c r i m i nalc o de s o f m o s t St at e s . ” I f

t he 9 st ate def

i n i t i on f or an of fen se i s broader t h an t h e gen eri c def i n i t i on , a convi ct i on u n d er th a t st a te' s l a w can n ot serv e a s a p red i ca te f or th e en h a n cem en t. 10 I n an un publ i she d opi ni on, t hi s c our t con side r ed w het herc om m on l aw
r o bb e r y unde r N o r t h Car o l i na l aw i s ca t e go r i c al l y a c r i m e of vi o l e nc e pur s uant t o § 4B 1. 2. Th e c our tge ner i c al l y de fi n ed ro bber y as “ aggr avat ed l ar c eny,

11 contai n i n g at l east t h e el em en t s of m i sapp ropri ati on of property un der
c i rc um s t anc e s i nvo l vi ng [ i m m e di at e ] da nge rt o t he pe r s o n. ” N o r t h Car o l i na 12
c our t s have de f

i ned c om m on l aw r obbe r y as “ t he f el oni ous , non- c ons ens ual t aki ng of m oney or per so nalpr ope r t y f r om t he per so n orpr es enc e o f anot herby
m e ans o f

v i o l e nc e o r fe ar . ” The c o ur t i n Moore c o n c l u d e d t h a t th e s t a t e 's 13 de f i ni t i o n o f

r o bb e r y “ s ubs t ant i al l y c o r r e s po nds ” t o t he g e ne r i c de f i ni t i o n a nd t h u s w as a cr i m e of

vi ol en ce. 14 R eco gn i zing tha t t h e com m on l a w rob b ery con victi on w a s p rop erly u sed to
su p p ort h i s care er offen d er sta tu s as a crim e of viol en ce, E l l i s n ow see k s toN o. 07- 11276

2 W

AYN E R. LA FAVE , S UBS TANTI VE C RI M I NAL LAW § 11.4 , at21 8 (2 d ed. 20 03) 15 (“Pre cisely what kind of act i s requir ed i s no t madeverycl ear byt he l an gu age which has tr a dition allyb ee nu se d b yc ourt s an d le gis lature s.”). Mo de l P en al C od e § 5 .0 1 (1 ). 16 6 cha l l en ge t h e i n cl u si on of hi s at t e mpt convic t i on i n reachi n g t h e cri m e of vi ol en ce st an da rd f

or G u i del i n es pu rposes. T o res ol ve t h e qu est i on i n t h i s c ase w e w ou l d n eed t o defi n e t h e gen eri c, con tem p ora ry m ea n i n g o f “attem p t” a n d to com p a re th i s d efi n i ti on w i th N orth Car o l i na' s us e o f

t hatt e r m , no e as y t as k. Pr o fe s s o r LaFa ve no t e s t hatt he a c t us
r e us r e qui r e m e ntf

o r a t t e m ptc r i m e s i s v e r y di f f i c ul t t o de f

i ne w i t h pr e c i s i o n. 15 El l i s a r gue s t hatt he t r e nd a m o ng t he s t at e s i s t o w ar d t he “ s ubs t ant i als t e p” l angua ge o f th e M ode lPenalC ode
. The M ode lPenalC ode def i nes at t em pt as f ol l ow s: A pe r s o n i s g ui l t y o f a n a t t e m ptt o c o m m i t a c r i m e i f, a c t i ng w i t h t he ki nd o f

c ul pa bi l i t y o t he r w i s e r e qui r e d f o r c o m m i s s i o n o f

t he cri m e, he: (a) p u rp ose l y e n ga ge s i n con d u ct th a t w ou l d con sti tu te t he c r i m e i f

t he a t t e nda ntc i r c um s t anc e s w e r e a s he bel i eves t h em t o be; or (b) w he n c aus i ng a pa r t i c ul arr e s ul t i s a n e l e m e nto f t he cri m e, does or om i t s t o do an ythi n g w i t h t h e pu rpose of c a u s in g o r w ith th e b e lie f th a t it w ill c a u s e s u c h re s u lt w i t h ou tf

u rt h er c on du cton h i s part ; or ( c) pu rposel y does or om i t s t o do an yth in g th a t , un der t h e ci rcum st an ces as he beli eves t h em t o be, i s an act or om i ssi on const i t u t i n g a sub st an t i alstep i n a course of c o nduc tpl anne d t o c ul m i nat e i n hi s c o m m i s s i o n o f t he cri m e. 16 S u b section s ( a ) a n d (b ), acco rd i n g to E l l i s, are va ri a ti on s of t h e p rox i m i ty ap proach , w h i ch r equ i re t h e act or t o t ak e st eps ap proach i n g t h e a ccom pl i shedN o. 07- 11276

SeeLA FAVE § 1 1 .4 (b), at 2 2 0
. 17He furth er notes that Ne w York h as a dopted ano t he rn ar row pro xi mitytest, 18 requirin g the acto r toh ave carried“forward within dangerou s proximityto the criminalen d tob e att ain ed .”P eo pl e v . Mahb oub ian , 5 4 3N .E .2 d 3 4 , 4 5(N. Y. 1 9 8 9). 2 5 0F .3 d 1 0 5 , 1 1 6(2 d C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ). 19 SeeN.C. G EN . S TAT . §§ 14-1 .5, 14-8 7.1 (settin g punishments for attempt and robb ery 20 without de finin gth em). 7 cri m e, of

t en nea rl y com pl et i n g t h e cr im e . Su bsect i on ( c) i s t h e broadest 17
c at e go r y unde r t he Cod e , r e qui r i ng o nl y a “ s ubs t ant i als t e p” t o c o m pl e t i ng t he cri m e. I n t h e di f

ference betw een t h i s ph rase and t h e “ sl i gh t act s” l an gu age of N orth C a roli n a l a w l i es th e es sen ce of E l l i s' s ar gu m en t. El l i s a r gue s f

r o m LaFa ve t hatt w e nt y- t w o s t at e s ha ve a do pt e d t he
s u b s ta n tia l s te p t e s t o f th e M o d e l P e n a l c o d e , a n d h e n o te s th a t a ll tw e lv e cir c u it
c o ur t s (i n c o nt e xt s o t he r t han det er m i ni ng a ge ne r i c , c o nt e m po r ar y m e ani ng u n der t h e G u i del i n es) , t h e m i l i t ary courts , an d th e c o u rt s of f ou r ot h er s t ates h a v e a d o p te d th is te s t. E llis cit e s a p p r o v in g ly th e S e c o n d C ir c u it's o p in io n in 18 S u iv . I NS , in w h ic h th e co u r t n o te d a s h ift in t h e m e a n in go f “a tt e m p t” : “A s in Tay l or , th e m o d e r n m e a n in go f ‘ a tt e m p t’ h a s e v o lv e d fr o m th e cla s s ic
c om m on- l aw def

i ni t i on o f

t he t er m , and t he el em ent s of i nt entand a s ubst ant i al st ep tow ard com m i ssi on seto u t in th e M odel P en alC ode m ak e up t h e m ost
c o m m o n ly u s e d ‘ a tt e m p t’ d e fin itio n to d a y .” 19 E l l i s poi n t s out t h at N ort h C arol i n a h as n otcod i f i ed t h e cri m es of

ei t h er r obbe r y o r at t em pt
. The N or t h C ar ol i n a Suprem e Court , he ar gues , has 20 defi n ed t h e act u s r eu s r equ i rem en t of att em pt broadl y. H e ci t es S ta te v
. B ell , in
w hi c h t hat c our topi ned: “ B ec ause ‘ t he r eas on f or r equi r i ng an ove r t ac t i s t hat
w ith o u t it th e r e is t o o m u c h u n c e r ta in ty a s to w h a t t h e in te n t a c tu a lly w a s ,’N o. 07- 11276

3 1 6S .E .2 d 6 1 1 , 6 1 6(N. C

. 1 9 8 4) (quo tin g 21 AM . J UR .2 D C RI M I NAL LA W § 1 5 9( 1 9 8 1 ))

. 21 Va nB ell v . St ate , 7 7 5P .2 d 1 2 7 3 , 1 2 7 5(Nev . 1 9 8 9). 22 Seei d

. 23 8 ‘ w h en ev er th e d esign of a pe rson to com m i t a cri m e is cl ea rl y sh ow n , sl i gh t acts i n f u rth era n ce of the de sign w i l lcon sti tu te an attem p t. ’ ” E l l i s n ot e s th a t a 21
m i nor i t y o f

s t at es has adopt ed t he “s l i ght act s” te st , an d h e arg ues t hi s l anguage i s i n con sist en t w i th the ge n eric, con tem p ora ry m ea n i n g o f a ttem p t. El l i s a dv anc e s t w o a r gum e nt s a s to w h y t he s l i ghta c t s t e s t a nd t he
s ubs t ant i als t e p t e s t s a r e di f fe r e nt
. Fi r s t , he ar gue s t hatt he w o r d “ s l i ght” i s t he p olar o ppos i t e o f

“ subs t ant i al
. ” Sec ond, he ar gues t he t w o di f fer entt ests

“ em bod y f

u n da m en t al l y di st i n ct rat i on al es f or t h e cri m i n al i zati on of att em pted of fens es . ” El l i s sa ys t hat t he s l i ght ac t s t es t use s t he “ ac t ” m er el y t o c onf i r m an in te n t to c o m m it th e a tt e m p te d c r im e , a n d h e c ite s a N e v a d a c a s e d e s c r ib in gth is t est as f ol l ow s: “ [ W ] e em ph asi ze t h e i n verse r el ati on shi p w h i ch exi st s bet w een t h e defen da n t ' s i n t en tt o com m i t t h e cr i m e an d t h e p erf orm an ce of

an overtact t ow ard t h e com m i ssi on of t h e cri m e. ” T h u s, w h en t h e act or' s i n te n t is clea r, 22 th e a c t r e q u ir e m e n t is m in im a l. 23 I n co nt r as t , E l l i s ar gue s , t he s ubs t ant i als t e p t e s t i m po s e s a n i nde pe nde nt
ac t us r e us r e qui r e m e nt , a nd h e c i t e s t hi s c o ur t ' s de c i s i o n i n Uni t e d S tat e s v. O v i e do , i n w h i ch w e noted t h at t h e o v ertactrequi rem en t prot ect s agai n st puni s hm e ntf

o r m e r e t ho ugh t s : “ [ T] he po s s i bi l i t y o f e rror is m i t i ga t e d b y t he
r e qui r e m e ntt hatt he o bj e c t i ve ac t s of t he de fe nda nte vi de nc e c o m m i t m e ntt o t he
c r im in a l v e n tu r e a n d co r r o b o r a te th e m e n s re a . T o th e e x te n t t h a t t h is
r e q u ir e m e n t is p r e s e r v e d it p r e v e n ts th e co n v ic tio n o f p e r s o n s e n g a g e d in i n n ocent act s on t h e basi s of a m en s rea proved t h rough specul ati ve i n ferences,N o. 07- 11276

5 2 5F .2 d 8 8 1 , 8 8 5( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 7 4) (cit ationo mitt ed). 24 Id

. 25 4 9 9F .2 d 3 7 0 , 3 7 3 -7 7( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 7 4). 26 Id

. at 3 7 7
. 27 Id

. at 3 7 5
. 28 9 u n rel i able f

orm s of t estim o n y , an d p ast cri m i n alcondu ct
. ” T h e court 24
co n c lu d e d : “ T h u s, w e d e m a n d th a t in or d e r fo r a d e fen d a n t to b e g u il ty of a
c r i m i nala t t e m pt , t he o bj e c t i ve a c t s pe r f o r m e d, w i t h ou t a ny r e l i anc e o n t he
accom pa n yi n g m en s r ea, m ark the defend an t ' s c o n d u ctas c ri m i n ali n na t u re. T h e act s s h ou l d be u n i qu e rat h er t h an so com m on pl ace t h at t h ey are eng aged i n b y pe r s o ns no ti n v i o l at i o n o f t he l aw. ” The c o ur t i n O v i e do r e l i ed on

25
o bj e c t i ve a c t s no tm e r e l y as e vi de nc e o f t he ac t o r ' s i nt e nt , buta s a n i nde pe nde nt i n di cat or of

cr i m i n alact i vi t y. B ased on this d i vergen ce of langu age an d p u rpose, El l i s c o nc l ude s t hatN o r t h C ar o l i na' s s l i ghta c t s t e s t i s f unda m e nt al l y di f

fe r e nt from , an d bro a d er th a n , the ge n eric su b stan ti a lstep test. O n th e o th e r h a n d , Uni t e d S t ate s v . Manduj ano , a case upon w h i ch O v i e do rel ies , d iscu ss e s a t len g th th e p re p a ra tion -a tte m p t di st i n ct i on an d set t l es on t h e substanti alst ep l an g u a g e. Th e courtt h en st ates: “ T h e ph rase 26

‘ subs t ant i als t ep, ’rat herthan ‘ ove r t act ’

. . . i ndi c at es t hat t he c onductm ustbe
m ore t h an rem ot e. ” Th i s def i n i t i on seem s t o equ ate t h e substanti alst ep tes t 27
w i t h any a cttha tcrosses the l i n e f rom prepa rat i on t o executi on . Th e courtal so qu ot ed va ri ou s cases d escr i bi n g t h e p reparati on - att em pt c on t i n u u m w i t h such l anguage as “ no def i n i t e l i ne” and “ m at t erof deg r ee . ” H er e w e w oul d be

28
r e qui r e d t o de c i de w he t he r t he de gr e e o f di f fe r e nc e b e t w e e n s ubs t ant i als t e psN o. 07- 11276

Cf

. United States v. Taylor , 5 2 9 F
. 3 d 1 2 3 2 , 1 2 3 7

– 3 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8) (f i n di n g tha t 29 Ari zon a's attempt statut e, which us ed the phra se “anystep,” was broade r th an the federal de finitio n , b ut th at Ari z on ac ourt s inte rp re te d th e st atutet o me a n“ sub st a nti al st ep”)

. 4 7 7S .E .2 d 9 1 5 , 9 2 1 (N. C

. 1 9 9 6). 30 Id

. (quo tin

g S tatev . Price , 1 8 4S .E .2 d 8 6 6 , 8 6 9(N. C

. 1 9 7 1 )) (em ph a si s a dd ed). 31 10 and s l i ghta c t s i s g r e at en ou gh t o w ar r antdi f fe r i ng t r e at m e ntund e rt he G ui de l i ne s , a c l o s e q ue s t i o n. I I T h e g o v e r n m e n t a r g u e s th a t t h e r e w a s n o e r r o r a n d ce r ta in ly n o p la in
e r r o r . B y th e g o v e r n m e n t’s a r g u m e n t, th e a c tu a l s ta te o f N o r th C a r o lin a la w is cl oser t o t h e sub st an t i al st ep t est
. It p o in ts to S t atev. Mi l l er , i n whi c h t he 29 N o r th C a r o lin a S u p r e m e C o u r t st a te d : “T h e e le m e n ts o f a n a tt e m p t t o co m m it
an y cri m e are: ( 1) the i n t en tto com m i t t h e substanti ve of fen se, an d ( 2) an overt act don e f

or t h at pu rpose w h i ch goes beyon d m ere preparati on , bu t ( 3) fal l s s h ort
o f th e co m p le te d o ffe n s e .” T h e c o u r t ex p la in e d th e “o v e r t a c t” re q u ir e m e n t in 30 t hi s w ay: In ord er to c on sti tu te a n a ttem p t, i t i s esse n ti a ltha t t h e d efen d a n t, w i th th e i nt entof

c om m i t t i ng t he par t i c ul arc r i m e, s houl d have do n e som e o ve r ta c ta da pt e d t o , a ppr o xi m at i ng, a nd whi c h i n t he ordi n ary an d l i kely c ou rse of t h i n gs w ou l d resul t i n t h e com m i ssi on t he r e o f

. The r e f

o re, the ac t m us t r e ac h fare no ugh t o w ar ds t he ac c o m pl i s hm e nto f t he de s i r e d r e s ul t t o a m o untt o t he c o m m e n c e m e n t o f th e co n s u m m a tio n . It m u s t n o t b e m e r e ly p rep a ra tory
. In oth er w ord s, w h i l e i t n ee d n ot be the l a st pro xim a te ac t t o t he co ns um m at i o n of t he of fe ns e at t e m pt e d t o b e pe r pe t r at e d, i t m u stapp roach suff i ci en t l y n ear t o i t t o st an d ei t h er as t h e f i rstor som e subs e quen tst ep i n a di rectm ovem en t t ow ards t h e com m i ssi on of t h e of fen se af t er t h e prepa rat i on s are m ad e. 31N o. 07- 11276

6 4 2 S .E .2 d 5 0 9(N. C

. App . 2 0 0 7). 32 5 5 0U .S

. 1 9 2 , 1 2 7S

. C t. 1 5 8 6(2 0 0 7). 33 1 2 7S

. C t. at 1 5 9 6
. 34 11 B ased on this langu age, the govern m en t a rgues that N ort h C arol i n a i m poses a

“ s ubs t ant i alb ur de n o n t he t yp e o f o ve r t a c t t hatw i l ls upp o r t a n a t t e m pt
c o n v ic tio n ” v e r y s im ila r to th e s u b s ta n tia l s te p te s t. E llis co n te n d s th a t t h e tw o N o r th C a r o lin a ca s e s h e cit e d , B ella nd S ta te
v. Hend ers on , both of w h i ch reci t e an d ap pl y t h e sl i gh t act s t est , are t h e cor rect 32 st atem en t of N ort h C arol i n a l aw . H e ci t es Jam es v. Un i t ed S t ate s , i n whi c h t he 33 Su pre m e Co u r tdet er m i ned w het herat t em pt ed bur gl ar y underFl or i da l aw pre se nt ed a se r i ous r i sk of i nj ury. The C our t ex a m i n ed Fl or i da' s l aw “ as in te r p r e te d b y th a t S ta te ' s h ig h e s t c o u r t.” T h u s , E llis a r g u e s , B ell , as an 34
o pi ni o n o f

t he N o r t h Car o l i na Supr e m e C o ur t t hatha s no t b e e n o ve r r ul e d, i s t he l a w of th e sta te. H e a l so n otes th a t Hend ers on w as de c i de d o nl y l as t y e ara nd
a p p l i es th e sa m e test. E llis fu rth er a rg u es th a t Mi l l erdo e s no t c hang e t he
a n a l ys i s be ca u se th a t case m ere l y h eld t h a t m ere p rep a ra ti on i s i n su ff i ci en t t o sup port an att em pt c on vi ct i on . H e f i n ds t h i s e n u n cia ti on of t h e st an da rd
u n h el pful becau se i t does n ot provi de any gu i da n ce on t h e di st i n ct i on betw een a sl i gh t actan d a su bstanti alst ep. A n overtact , he argu es, i s beyon d m ere pr e pa r at i o n, b utt he q ue s t i o n he r e i s w he n t hatl i ne i s c r o s s e d. N o r t h Car o l i na pen al i zes s l i gh tact s, w h ereas m ostst ates requ i re m ore. E ven i f w e w er e t o a c c e p tEl l i s' s c ont ent i on t hat s l i ght ac t s and subs t ant i al st eps ar e t w o f

und am ent al l y di f

fer entappr oac hes t o t es t i ng t he s uf f i c i enc y o f

an overtactf

or a c ri m i n alatt em pt c on vi ct i on , w e are l ef t w i t h t h e di f

f i cul t y of
w h ere N orth C a roli n a fa l l s i n the con ti n u u m be tw ee n tho se p o le s . T h e N orthN o. 07- 11276

Mandu jano , 4 9 9F .2 d at 3 7 7(em ph a si s a dd ed). 353 1 6S .E .2 d at 6 1 6
. 366 4 2 S .E .2 d at 5 1 3
. 37 12 Ca r o l i n a S u p r e m e Co u r t h a s a n n o u n c e d t h e s l i g h t a c t s t e s t i n B ell , b utt he l ang uag e i n Mi l l er ap pea rs on f i rstbl u sh to requ i re s om et h i n g m ore. O n cl oser e x a m in a tio n , Mi l l erdoes not app ear t o chan ge B ell ' s f ram ew ork. T h e ph rases

“ com m en cem en tof

t h e consum m ati on , ” “ n otbe m erel y prepa rat ory, ” an d “f i rst
o r s o m e s ubs e que nts t e p” al l po i ntt o a n o ve r t a c t r e qui r e m e ntt hatc r o s s e s a l i ne betw een pl an n i n g an d execu t i on b u t d oes n oteluci da t e t h e di st i n ct i on betw een th e tw o te s ts a t is s u e . T h e w o r d “fir s t” c o u p le d w ith t h e w o r d “s lig h t” s e e m in g ly al l ow s a m i n or act to suff i ce f or an a t t em pt con vi ct i on . T h i s s t an da rd i s broader t h an t h e requi rem en tof a sub st an t i alst ep, w h i ch i s m ore t h an conf i rm ati on of t he a c t o r ' s i nt e nt ; i ti s “ c o nduc t
. . . s t r o ngl y c o r r o bo r at i ve of t he f i r m ne s s o f

t he d e fe n d a n t's cr im in a l in te n t.” 35 The go ve r nm e ntno t e s t hati n t he t w o N o r t h C ar o l i na c as e s El l i s c i t e s t he
c o ur t r e qui r e d a s ubs t an t i al st e p i n a c t ualpr ac t i c e . I n B ell , f o r e xa m pl e , t he
c o u r t d e s c r i b e d t h e a c tio n s o f th e d e fe n d a n t a n d a n o th e r p e r p e tr a to rin p r e p a r in gto ra p e t h e ir v ic tim s , n a m e ly , o r d e r in gth e v ic tim s to re m o v e th e ir cl oth es. In Hend ers on , a c as e t hat r e c i t e d t he s l i ght ac t s t e s t , t he defen dant

36
rem oved hi s pan t s and requested the vi ct i m to en gag e in sexu alcondu ct
. Th ese 37 fac t uals c enar i os , t he g ov er nm entar gues , do nots upporta c onc l usi on t hat
som et h i n g l ess t h an a substan t i alst ep i s act u al l y requ i red un der N o r t h Car o l i na la w . E llis r e p lie s t h a t e v id e n c e o f a s u b s ta n tia l s te p m a y h a v e b e e n p r e s e n t in t he s e c as e s , b utt hatfac tdo e s no t c hang e t he c o ur t s ' s t at e m e nt s o f t he
a p p l i c a b l e l a w.N o. 07- 11276

3 6 7F .3 d 1 0 7 9 , 1 0 8 6( 9 thC ir
. 2 0 0 4) (cit ation s o mitt ed). 38 13 I n Un itedS ta tes v. S a rb ia , t he N i nt h Ci r c ui t a nal yz e d Nev ad a' s a t t e m pt st at ut e a nd cas e l aw , w hi c h use s t he “ sl i ght ac t ” appr oac h, and c onc l uded t hat t he s t at e ' s l aw w as c o e xt e ns i ve w i t h t he fe de r al , “ s ubs t ant i als t e p” a ppr o ac h: I t i s t r ue t hatN e va da has fo r m ul at e d t he el e m e nt s o f a t t e m ptus i ng s l i ght l y di f

fe r e ntl ang uag e f

r o m t hato f

t he c o m m o n law
. N e va da requ i res proof

tha tt h e defen da n t ha s perf orm ed “s om e act ” rat h er t han a “ s ubs t ant i ve s t e p” t o w ar ds t he c o m m i s s i o n o f t he cr i m e . The N e v a d a S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e ld th a t a c o n v ic tio n fo r a tt e m p t w ill be aff i rm ed i f t h e evi den ce s h ow s t h at t h e defen da n t ha s perf orm ed a “s lig h t a c t,” s o lo n ga s h is o r h e r in te n t t o co m m it t h e cr im e is cl ear. H ow ever, af

t er r evi ew i n g n u m erous N evad a S u prem e C ou rt op i n i on s on th e su b j ect, w e a re p ersu a d ed tha t t h e term s “som e a ct” o r “ s l i g h ta c t , ” a s u s e d i n t h e N e v a d a c a s e l a w , h a v e t h e s a me ope r at i onalm eani ng as “ subs t ant i als t ep, ” as use d i n t he t r adi t i onal com m on -l a w de fi n i ti on of a ttem p t. 38 In sum , t h e qu est i on i s c l ose as t o w h et h er E ll i s’N ort h C arol i n a att em pted
c o m m o n l aw r o bb e r y fal l s w i t hi n t he g e ne r i c , c o nt e m po r ar y m e ani ng o f a t t e m pt i n t hi s c o nt e xt
. The q ue s t i o n a s t o w he t he r t he a t t e m ptfal l s und e r o ne o f t he
o t h e r c a t c h a l lp r o v i s i o n s o f § 4 B1
. 2 i s a l s o c l o s e , b u t f o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d b e l o w, w e de c l i ne t o e nt ert hat ev en m urki er , and l es s t hor oughl y ar gued, ar ea. III El l i s a dm i t s t hathe di d no t ob j e c t t o t he ca r e e r of fe nde r enha nc e m e nta nd th a t t h i s cou rt' s rev i ew i s f or p l a i n erro r. P l a i n erro r d octrine pr ov i d es th a t: A n ap p ell a te cou rt m a y n ot corre ct an erro r th e d efen d a n t fail ed to r ai s e i n t he di s t r i c tc o ur t unl e s s t he r e i s ( 1) e r r o r , ( 2) t hati s pl ai n, an d ( 3) t h at af

fect s s u bstanti alri g h t s. I f al lt h ree c on di t i on s are m e t a n app el l ate c ou rtm ay then exerci se i t s di scr et i on t o noti ce aN o. 07- 11276

U.S. v. Mares, 402F .3d 5 11, 520(5th Ci r . 2005) (intern al quo tations and citation s 39 om itte d)

. U.S. v. Alfaro, 408F .3d 2 04, 209 (5th Cir. 2 005) (“The secon d pro ngof the plain-error 40 test i s al so met because this court h as co nsistentlyh eld that whe n a di strict court errs in co nclu din gth at ad ef

en dant wa s c onvicte d of a‘ crim e of

viole nce ,’th e erro r isp lain .”). U.S. v. Dentle r, 4 92 F.3 d 30 6, 3 13-1 4 (5 th Cir. 2 007); U.S. v. Gonz ale z-C havez, 432 41 F.3 d 33 4, 3 36-3 7 (5 th Cir. 2 005); U.S

. v . In s aul garat, 378F .3d 4 56, 466 -471 (5th Cir. 2 004) (concluding , at47 1, “ [t]his conclusion clearlyan d plainly foll ows from the terms o f sec tion 4B 1.2(a), t he w or ding of the Fl oridastatute and the indictment, and our jurispru dence construin g sectio n 4B 1.2. Therefore it was plain error. . . .”); U.S . v . G raci a-C antu, 302F .3d 308 , 31 2-13(5th Cir. 200 2); U.S. v. Dixo n, 265 F. App’x 383 , 385 -86, 200 8 WL 410 705 , ** 2-** 3 (5thC ir. 2 008); U.S. v. Sanchez -Torres, 136 F. App’ x 644 , 647-4 8, 200 5 WL 146 310 2, * *2-* *3 (5thC ir. 2 005); U.S. v. Lope z-Hern ande z, 112F . App’x98 4, 985 , 200 4 WL 242 867 5, * *1 (5th Cir. 2 004); U.S. v. Aguil ar-Delgado, 120F . App’x52 2,52 3-24 , 20 04 WL 280 179 4, **1 (5thC ir. 2 0 0 4). 14 f orf ei t ed errorbu tonl y i f ( 4) the errorseri ou sl y af fect s t h e fai rness, i n t egri t y, or pu bl i c r epu t ati on of j u di ci alproceedi n gs. 39 O ur nar r at i ve of

the dec i si onalpath t hi s c our t w oul d h ave t o t r aver se t o r es ol ve th e m erits of de fen d a n t’ s ob j ection to h i s sen ten ce, a n ob j ect io n n ev er m a d e to t he t r i alc o ur t , m ak e s pl ai n b e yo nd p e r ad ve nt ur e t hata ny e r r o r w as no t pl ai n. A s E l l i s w ou l d h a ve i t, allof th e close ca l l s fa l lh i s w a y, an d tha t i s en ou gh
. Y et, th e e r r o r s a id to b e p la in w a s n e v e r th e s u b je c t o f o b je c tio n b y a b le tr ia l co u n s e l. Pu t t i ng as i de i t s obs c uri t y att r i al , even n ow af t erf ul lbr i ef

i ng and or al argu m en t t h e err or i s n ot pl ai n or obvious, i n deed i t i s m ost u n cert ai n w h et h er th e r e w a s a n y e r r o r a t a ll. E l l i s ci t es di ct a f

rom t h i s court sug gest i n g t h at an y erroneou s app l i cat i on of a “ c r i m e o f vi o l e nc e ”

- r e l at e d e nhan c e m e nt w i l l i ps o fac t o be pl ai n. But on c l o s e r e xa m i nat i o n ne i t he r t he c as e f r o m w hi c h he dr aws t h e d i ct a, no rt he 40
o th e r ca s e s h e cit e s , s u p p o r t h is p o s itio n . T h o s e ca s e s a r e n o t a n a lo g o u s . T h e ir 41 bri ef an al yses t u rn on t h e el em en t s of t h e cr i m e sust ai n i n g t h e convi ct i on orN o. 07- 11276

See U.S. v . Sanch ez-Garcia, 200 9 WL 139 591 , *2 ( 5t h Ci r . 20 09) (“Be cau se this 42 Circuit h as not rul e o n this interpretationof § 4A1 .2(k), an d be cau se th ere is acircuit split on the issue, we cannot hold that th e di strict court pl ainlyerr ed .
. . . Inl ight of this di sa gre em ent inth e circ uit s, th e di strictc ourtdidnotp lainlye rr. . . . ”)

. No. 0 7 -9 7 1 2 , 2 0 0 9WL7 6 3 3 5 4 , *3(March2 5 , 2 0 0 9). 43 15 upon ot hers t r ai gh tforw a rd appl i c at i ons of c as e l aw t o c or r ec t w hat w oul d be
m o r e pr o m i s i ng c and i da t e s f o r c l e ar e r r o r . By c o nt r as t , t he i nqui r y he r e y i e l ds
no s uc h c l ar i t y; t hati s , t he “ c at e go r i c al” i nqui ry she ds l i t t l e l i ght
. Our 42 j u dg m en t draw s s t rength fr om th e S u prem e C ou rt ’ s m ostrec en t gu i da n ce on t hi s q ue s t i o n. I n P u cket tv. Un ited S t ate s , J us t i c e Sc al i a, w r i t i ng f o rt he
m aj ori t y, reaff

i rm ed t h e p ri n ci pl e tha t to sati sf y t h e secon d p rong of pl ai n err or i n q u i ry , “t h e lega lerro r m u st be c le a r or ob viou s, rath er th a n su b j ect to
r e a s o n a b le d e b a te .” 43 W e need not deci de w h et h er E l l i s’att em pted com m o n la w robbery convic t i on shou l d h ave been perm i t t ed to sustai n t h e enh an cem en t
. Th e rec ord
r e f l e c t s a d i s t r i c t c o u r t s o l i c i t i n g d i s c u s s i o n f r o m c o u n s e l , e x a m i n i n g t h e PSR
an d ot h er evi den ce ass i du ou sl y, an d caref u l l y consi deri n g t h e fact s of E l l i s’case, i ncl udi ng t he nat ure of t he i nst ant of

fens es as w el las hi s ext ens i ve c r i m i nal h is to r y , in s e n te n c in gh im
. T h is e m p h a s is o n th e s e c o n d p r o n go f p la in e r r o r a n a ly s is is p a r tic u la r ly i m p orta n t g i ve n th e d ev elop m en t of th i s cou rt’ s ca se law on the third an d f ou rth pron gs of

t h e pl ai n err or t esti n t h e sentenci n g context , w h ere the court h as been gen erous w i t h rem an d, oft en fi n di n g t h at error s l ead i n g t o substanti ali n creases in s e n te n c e s , e v e n th o s e e r r o r s n o t r a is e d u n til a p p e a l a n d th u s s u b je c t t o p la inN o. 07- 11276

A survey of ca ses in dicates somev ariationintre atment of plain errorreview, but 44 with a gene rally permissive approach to the third an d fourth pron gs, and especi ally where a si gnif ic a ntlydif

fe re nt Guid elin esr a n ge wa s erron eo u slya dvis ed
. See, e.g. , Dentle r, 492F .3d at 314(quotin g broa d language co ncernin g reman d onsentencing er r or , but pro ceedingto a n alyz e fo r pr ej u dice , whichit fo u n d) ; Alfaro , 40 8 F .3d at 2 09; U.S. v . P enn ell , 40 9 F.3d 240 , 245 -46 (5thC ir. 2 005) (no ting cl ear showin g of prej udic e in this case, butle aving future cases open); U.S. v. Ville ga s, 40 4 F .3d 3 55, 364 -65 (5thCir. 2 005) (fin ding preju dice where erron eou s Guid elin esra n ge a n d co rr ect ran ge di d n otoverlap) ; Insaulgarat , 3 7 8F .3 d at 4 6 8n . 1 7( sa me); U.S. v . Graci a-C antu, 3 02 F.3 d 308, 313(5th Cir. 20 02) (same); U.S. v. Aderhold, 8 7 F .3d 7 40, 7 4 4( 5 thC ir
. 1996) ( as tothir d pron g , fin din gp re j u dice“b ec au se , ab se nt a n[ erro n eo u s] upw ard dep art ure, [t he def enda nt] woul d have rec eiveda less er se nten ce” ; asto four th pr ong, noti ng “per mi ss ive” nat ure of plain err or review but choosi ng to vacat e and rem and) ; U. S. v. Franks, 46F .3d 4 02, 405(5th Cir . 1 99 5) (“Becau se Franks erron eou sly and mistakenly receive d a substantially lon ge r sente nce und er the guideline s than he should have re ceived, the f airne ss and integrity of th e j udic ial pr oce edi ng was seri ous ly affe cte d. ”) ; U.S . v. Bro wnlow, 8 7 F. App’x33 7, 3 38-3 9; 2 004WL96 787 , ** 1 (5 th Cir. 2 004) (seeminglyassu ming prej udic e; de clining

to “specul ate” as towhether lowe rs en t en c e would in fact have b een imposed); U.S. v . C olindres, 98 F. App’x34 7, 3 49, 2004 WL 116 183 2, * *1 (5thC ir. 2 004) (overtu r ni ngwhe r e s ent en c e i m p os edw as gre at erth anhighe s tse nt en c e a dvi s edund er correct Guideline s sent ence); U.S. v. Vivar-Aco sta, 1 12 F. App’x328, 329 , 2004WL 2 296 088 , ** 1 (5 th Cir. 2 004) (same); U.S. v . Luna -Montoya , 80F . App’x33 4, 3 37-3 8, 2 003WL22 533 191 , ** 3 (5 th C ir
. 2 0 0 3). C

f. U.S . v. Leonar d, 157 F.3d 343, 346 ( 5 t hC i r . 1 9 9 8) (n o prejudic e); U.S . v. E ch av arria , 1 3 8F
. App ’x6 7 8 , 6 7 9 -8 0( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 5) (f in din gno pr ej u dice). 16 er r orr evi ew , m er i t ed r em and, al t hough w e are n otconvi nce d thatthe c as e l aw 44
o n t hi s po i nti s s e t t l e d o r a s c at e go r i c al as l ang uag e i n s o m e c as e s m i ghtm ak e i t seem . T o our eyes, t h e l ack of an y cl ear err or here m ean s t h at E l l i s’sentence
s h o u ld s ta n d
. E ven if w e w e r e i nc l i ne d, t hi s i s no o c c as i o n t o o f fe r m e t r i c s f

o rt he
s e ve r i t y o f

a n i nc r e as e w o r ke d b y de c i s i o ns l at e r f o und t o ha ve b e e n e r r o ra nd such a dep art u re as t o sum m on our di scr et i on t o cor rectan i nj u st i ce. N otevery err o r t h at i n creases a sentence need be cor rect ed by a cal lup on pl ai n err or doctr i n e. Itb ears em ph asi s t h at al ldefen da n t s’app eal s c h al l en gi n g a sentence reston the practi calp rem i se that the sentence shou l d be l ess. Th e doct ri n e of pl ai n error serves pow erf u l i n st i t u t i on al i n t erest s, i n cl u di n g securi n g t h e rol e ofN o. 07- 11276

17 t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rtas t h e courtof f i rsti n st an ce, as opposed t o a body c harge d t o m ake r ec om m endat i ons t o a ppel l at e cou rts
. An d ev en i f an i n crease i n a sentence be seen as i n evi t ably “ sub st an t i al ” i n one sen se i t does not i n evi t ably af

fectt h e fai rness, i n t egri t y, or pub l i c r epu t ati on of j u di ci alprocess a n d pr oce ed i n gs . T o con cl u d e th a t no t correctin g t h e err or claim ed h ere cas ts do ubtupo n t he fai r ne s s , i nt e gr i t y, orpub l i c r e put at i o n o f t he pr o c e e di ng dr ai ns al lcontent f

rom t h e doct ri n e of

pl ai n err or. We A F F I R M.