# 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- 25 42

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
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.

Ro dn ey P. Tay lo r

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 M is so ur i - West ern Div is io n

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Marc h 6 , 20 17 Fi le d: Ju ne 13 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re RI LEY, Ch ie f Ju dg e, GRUENDER and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

. 1

__

__ __ __ __ __
RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

The Hon or ab le W il li am Ja y Ri le y st ep pe d do wn as Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Uni te d 1 St at es Co ur t of App eal s fo r th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it at th e cl os e of bu si ne ss on Mar ch 10
, 20 17 . He has be en su ccee de d b y th e Hon or ab le Lave ns ki R. Sm it h.Ro dn ey Tay lo r en te red a co nd it io na l pl ea of gu il ty t o be in g a fel on in

po ss e s s i on of a fir earm in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ). The
di st ric t co ur t ad op te d th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n r e po rt’s (PSR ) reco m m en de d 2

se nt en ci ng ran ge an d se nt en ced Tay lo r to 77 m on th s im pr is on m en t. Tay lo r ap pe al s (1 ) th e di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at hi s ba se of fen se le ve l was 24 un de r Uni te d
St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (U.S.S.G. or Gui de li ne s) § 2K2 .1(a )(2 ), an d (2 ) th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of hi s m ot io n to di sm is s th e in di ct m en t be cau se § 92 2( g) (1 ) is

un co ns ti tu ti on al un de r th e Seco nd Am en dm en t of the Uni te d Stat es Co ns ti tu ti on as
ap pl ie d t o h im . Havi ng ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, we af fir m

.

I. BACKGRO UND
On Sep te m

be r 18
, 20 14
, of

fic ers fro m th e K a n s a s Ci ty, Mi ss ou ri, Po li ce Dep art m en t res po nd ed to a 91 1 cal l in whi ch th e cal le r st at ed Tay lo r refu se d to le av e he r ap art m en t an d sh e fear ed Tay lo r m ig ht ha ve a gu n. Offi cers m et th e cal le r ou ts id e th e ap art m en t bu il di ng

. The cal le r to ld th e of fic ers Tay lo r sp ok e of ha vi ng a gu n an d
he sh ot so m eo ne in th e pa st

. Offi cers en te red th e ap art m en t an d fo un d Tay lo r in th e cal le r’s be d. Afte r Tay lo r de ni ed po ss es si ng a fir earm , an of fic er fri sk ed hi m an d fel t
th e ou tl in e of a ha nd gu n in Tay lo r’s rig ht fro nt pa nt po ck et

. Offi cers pl aced Tay lo r in ha nd cu ffs an d rem o v e d a lo ad ed rev ol ve r fro m hi s po ck et

. A cri m in al reco rd
ch eck rev eal ed Tay lo r ha d m ul ti pl e pr io r fel on y co n v i c t i o ns in Mi ss ou ri. Offi cers

arre st ed Tay lo r fo r be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

.

Befo re tri al

, Tay lo r m ov ed to di s m is s th e fed eral gr an d jury in di ct m en t
ch arg in g h i m w it h be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , arg ui ng 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ) was un co ns ti tu ti on al be cau se it vi ol at ed hi s rig ht to ke ep an d be ar arm s

un de r th e Seco nd Am en dm en t. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Tay lo r’s m ot io n to di sm is s. Tay lo r en te red a co nd it io na l pl ea of gu il ty, res erv in g hi s rig ht to ap pe al th e di st ric t

The Hon or ab le Howar d F. Sach s, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 2 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-co ur t’s de ni al of hi s m ot io n to di sm is s th e in di ct men t

. The di st ric t co ur t acce pt ed

Tay lo r’s co nd it io na l p le a.

The PSR cal cu la te d Tay lo r’s ba se of fen se le ve l un de r U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(a )(2 )

as 24

. Hav in g rece iv ed a th ree- le ve l red uc ti on fo r a c c e pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y , Tay lo r’s to ta l of

fen se le ve l was 21

. W he n pa ire d wit h Tay lo r’s cat eg or y VI cri m in al
h i st or y , th e PSR ad vi se d a Gui de li ne s se nt en ci ng ran ge of 77 to 96 m on th s im pr is on m en t. At hi s se nt en ci ng he ari ng , Tay lo r arg ue d hi s ba se of fen se le ve l sh ou ld
be 20
, no t 24
, be cau se hi s pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s fo r un la wfu l us e of weap on s in
vi ol at io n of M o

. Rev

. St at

. § 57 1.0 30 .1(4 ) do no t qu al ify as “ cri m es of vi ol en ce”

un de r § 4B 1.2 (a) of th e Gui de li ne s. The di st ric t co ur t ov erru le d Tay lo r’s ob jecti on s

an d s en te nc ed hi m

to 77 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t.

II

. DISCUSS IO N Tay lo r arg ue s h is cal cu la te d b as e o ffen se lev el of 2 4 is im pr op er b ecau se hi s
pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s fo r un la wfu l u s e of weap on s do no t qu al ify as cri m es of
vi ol en ce un de r § 4B 1.2 (a) of th e Gui de li ne s. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s of fact fo r cl ear erro r an d it s in te rp ret at io n an d ap pl ic at io n of th e Gui de li ne s de no vo

. S e e U n i t e d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 84 6 F.3 d 12 49
, 12 50 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ). Und er th e Gui de li ne s, a fel o n i n p o ss es si on of a fir earm wit h at le as t two pr io r fel on y

c o n v i c t i o ns fo r a co nt ro ll ed -s ub st an ce of fen se or cri m e of vi ol en ce rece iv es a ba se of fe n s e le ve l of 24

. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(a )(2 ). Sect io n 4B 1.2 (a) of th e 20 05
Gui de li ne s d efi ne d c rime of v io le nc e as :

an y of fen se un de r fed eral or st at e la w, pu ni sh ab le by im pr is on m en t fo r a te rm ex ceed in g o ne y ear, t ha t—

(1 ) ha s as an el em en t th e us e, at te m pt ed us e, or th rea t e n e d us e of ph y si cal for ce ag ai ns t t he pe rs on of a no th er, o r

-3

-(2 ) i s b u r g la ry of a dwe ll in g, ars on , or ex to rti on , in vo lv es us e of

ex pl os iv es , or ot he rwis e in vo lv es co nd uc t th at pr es en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ri sk of p hysic al in jury to an ot he r.

Tay lo r was co nv ic te d in Mi ss ou ri st at e co ur t on two co un ts of un la wfu l us e of

weap on s in vi ol at io n of Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 57 1.0 30 .1(4 ), whi ch st at es , in rel ev an t pa rt: “[a ] p e r s on co m

m it s th e of

fen se of un la wfu l us e of weap on s

. . . if he or sh e kn owi ng ly

. . . [e]xh ib it s, in th e pr es en ce of on e or m or e pe rs on s, an y weap on read il y
cap ab le of le th al us e in an an gr y or th reat en in g m an ne r.” W he n dec id in g whet he r a cri m e qu al ifi es as a vi ol en t fel on y un de r 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)( 2 ) ( B ) o f th e Arm ed
C a reer Cri m in al Act (ACCA) or a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r § 4B 1.2 (a) of t h e Gui de li ne s, “ [w]e so m et im es refe r to su bp arag rap h (1 ) as th e ‘force ’ cl au se

. . . [an d]

su bp arag rap h (2 ) as th e ‘resi d u al ,’ or ‘oth erwi se ,’ cl au se .” Uni te d St at es v. Bo os e, 73 9 F.3 d 11 85
, 11 86 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (fi rs t ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Tess m er, 65 9 F.3 d
71 6, 7 18 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ); an d th en ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Crai g, 63 0 F.3 d 7 17 , 72 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 )); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Vin cen t, 57 5 F.3 d 82 0, 82 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (rec og ni zi ng th e de fin it io ns of “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” un de r th e Gui de li ne s an d “ vi ol en t
fel on y ” u nd er § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) of t he ACCA are in te rch an ge ab le ).

W e co ns is te nt ly ha ve he ld a co nv ic ti o n i n vi ol at io n of Mi ss ou ri’s § 57 1.0 30 .1(4 ) qu al ifi es as a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r th e fo rce cl au se an d th e res id ua l
cl au se in th e Gui de li ne s. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Hud so n, 85 1 F.3 d 80 7, 81 0 (8 th
Ci r. 20 17 ) (h ol di ng a pr io r co nv ic ti on in vi ol at io n of § 57 1.0 30 .1(4 ) qu al ifi es “ as a cri m e of vi ol en ce u nd er bo th th e fo rce clau se of U.S.S.G. § 4B1 .2(a )(1 )

. . . an d th e

res id ua l cl au se of § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2) ”); Uni te d St at es v. Ja ck so n, 46 2 F.3 d 89 9, 90 1 (8 th
Ci r. 20 06 ) (h ol di ng “ a vi ol at io n of § 57 1.0 30 .1(4 )

. . . 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

. . . an d i s th eref or e a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2) [th e res id ua l cl au se in th e Gui de li ne s]” (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d) ).

I n H ud so n, ad dr es si ng a ne arl y id en ti cal arg um en t to Tay lo r’s, we co nf i r med

-4

-§ 57 1.0 30 .1(4 ) is a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r th e Gui de li ne s an d a vi ol en t fel on y un de r

th e ACCA. See Hud so n, 8 51 F.3d at 8 10

.

Tay lo r arg ue s th e Su pr em e Co ur t ru li ng s in Sam ue l Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 57 6 U.S.

__

_, 13 5 S. Ct

. 25 51 (2 01 5)

, an d Cu rti s Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 55 9 U.S.
13 3 (2 01 0 )

, s u p erce de ou r de ci si on s un de r th e ACCA, an d th us pr ecl ud e fin di ng § 57 1.0 30 .1(4 ) is a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r th e Gui de li ne s. W e di sa gr ee. In Hud so n,

we de te rm in ed “ no th in g in Sam ue l Jo hn so n [o r Cu rti s Jo hn so n] cal l[e d] in to qu es ti on th e reas on in g in Pu ll ia m .” Hud so n, 85 1 F.3 d at 80 9 (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Pu ll ia m , 56 6 F .3d 78 4, 78 8 (8t h Cir. 20 09 ) (co nc lu di ng § 5 71 .03 0.1 (4 ) qu al ifi es as a vi ol en t
fel on y un de r th e fo rce c l a u se of th e ACCA “ be cau se it in vo lv es th e us e, at te m pt ed

us e, or th reat en ed us e of ph y si c a l f or ce ag ai ns t th e pe rs on of an ot he r” (in te rn al

qu ot at ions om itt ed )) ). U lti m at el y , w e co nc lud ed “ [u ] nde r [Eig ht h] [C]ircu it pr eced en t

. . . [ a ] pr io r co nv ic ti on [u nd er Mi ss ou ri’s § 57 1.0 30 .1(4 )] qu al ifi ed as a cri m e of
vi ol en ce un de r bo th th e fo rce cl au se of USSG § 4B 1.2 (a)( 1 ) ( P u l l i a m ) an d th e

res id ua l cl au se of § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2) ([Un it ed St at es v.] Fi el ds [1 67 F.3 d 11 89
, 11 91 (8 th
Ci r. 19 99 )] an d Ja ck so n) .” Id

. at 81 0; se e Uni te d St at es v. Easo n, 82 9 F.3 d 63 3, 64 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (“ It is a card in al ru le in ou r ci rcu i t th at on e pa ne l is bo un d by th e de ci si on of a pr io r pa ne l.” (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. And ers on , 77 1 F.3 d 10 64
, 10 66 (8 th Cir . 20 14 ))).

Tay lo r arg ue s § 92 2( g) (1 ) is un co ns ti tu ti on al as ap pl ie d to hi m be cau se he is

a no n- vi ol en t fel on an d a pe rm an en t ba n on po ss es si ng an d carr y in g fir earm s vi ol at es hi s Seco nd Am en dm en t rig ht to ke ep an d be ar arm s. “ W e rev ie w th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of [§ 92 2( g) (1 )] de no vo .” Uni te d St at es v. Seay, 62 0 F.3 d 91 9, 92 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ).

W e ha ve he ld “ it is well se tt le d th at Co ng res s di d no t vi ol at e th e Seco nd Am en dm en t

or ex ceed it s au th or it y un de r th e Co m m erce Cl au se whe n en act in g

. . . § 92 2( g) .”
Uni te d St at es v. Jo os , 63 8 F.3 d 58 1, 58 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). W hi le Tay lo r co nc ed es he
ha s pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s, he arg ue s “ ne it he r t h e i n s t a nt of fen se no r [h is ] pr io r fel on ie s in vo lv ed vi ol en t co nd uc t.” B u t vi ol at io ns of § 57 1.0 30 .1(4 ) “ pr es en t[] a

-5

-se rio us po te nt ia l ris k of ph y s i c a l in jury to an ot he r.” Ja ck so n, 46 2 F.3 d at 90 1 (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

. Tay lo r ha s no t de m on st rat ed he is a no n- vi ol en t fel on

. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Ben a, 66 4 F.3 d 11 80
, 11 83 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ [A] res tri ct io n

su ch as pr oh ib it in g th e po ss es si on of fir earm s by vi ol en t fel on s do es no t ‘im pa ir th e

co re co nd uc t up on whi ch th e [Sec on d Am en dm en t] r ig ht was pr em is ed .’ ” ( q u o t in g Park er v . Dis tri ct of C ol um bi a, 47 8 F .3d 37 0, 3 99 (D.C. Cir . 20 07 ))).

II I. CONCLUSI ON
W e aff irm.

__

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

-6

-