## I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-40264

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,

v. LUCIANO PASCACIO-RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant–Appellant.

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PRISCILLA R. OWEN, Circuit Judge:
Luciano Pascacio-Rodriguez w as c o nvicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) as a n a l i e n unlawfully p resent in the United States f ollowing d eportation.
He appeals his s entence o f 70 months of imprisonment, contending that the district court erred in concluding that his p r ior state-court conviction for conspiracy to commit murder warranted a 1 6-level enhancement under § 2L1.2 of the Sen t e n c i n g Guidelines. Pascacio-Rodriguez asserts that the Nevada
statute under which h e was convicted d i d n o t require proof of an overt act in f u r t h e r a n c e o f t h e c o n s p i r a c y ; t h e g e n e r i c , contemporary meaning of “conspira c y ” requires an overt act; as used in the Guideline s , “ conspiracy” r e fers to the U n it e d S ta t e s C o u rt o f A p p e a l s

F i f t h C i r cu i t 

## F I L E D April 11, 2014
Ly le W . Cay ce Clerk Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

### No. 12-40264

generic, co n t e m p o r ary meaning of that term; and, therefore, his prior state-court conviction does not constitute a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines.
We conclude that the Guidelines d o not require an overt act as an element of conspiracy to commit murder. The district court did not err in i mposing the 16-level enhancement, and we affirm.
I Pascacio-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to violating 8 U.S.C. § 1 326(a) and (b) for b eing unlawfully present in the United States following his d eportation. Only his sentence is at issue in this appeal. Pascacio-Rodriguez had been convicted of conspiracy to c o m m i t murder
under Nevada s tate law prior to the time that he was removed f rom the United States. The Presentence Invest i g a t ion Report (PSR) recommended a 16-level
enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) o f t he S entencing Guidelines based on that
2003 Nevada o ffense. Pascacio-Rodriguez objected, contending t hat the Nevada
statute unde r w h i ch he was convicted d id not require proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy and therefore that t he Nevada conspiracy offense was “broader than the contemporary generic definition of ‘conspiracy.’”
The district court overruled Pascacio-Rodriguez’s objection, noting that a number of federal conspiracy statutes do not require an overt act a nd concluding

t h a t the overt-act requirement was not “an i m portant vital part o f the g e n e r i c definition of ‘conspiracy.’” The district court calculated a total offense level of 21 and a criminal history category of VI, b ut i t r e d u c ed the criminal history category by one l e v e l b ecause the district c o urt concluded that P ascacioRodriguez’s criminal history had been o verrepresented. The corre s ponding advisory Guidelines r ange of imprisonme n t w a s 70 t o 87 m onths, and, after considering the applicable factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court sentenced Pascacio-Rodriguez to 70 m ont h s o f i mprisonment. On appeal, Pascacio-Rodriguez contends that the d istrict court erroneously imposed the 16-

2 Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

### No. 12-40264

level enhancement, leading to an incorrect calculation of t he Guidelines range. Absent the 16-level enhancement, t he a dv i s o r y Guidelines range would have been 33 to 41 months of imprisonment.
II The 16-level enhancement at issue applies if the defendant w as deported after he had been c onvic ted of “a crime of violence.” 1 

### The term “crime of violence” as defined in the commentary to § 2L1.2 of the S entencing Guidelines
includes the offense of “murder” under federal, state, or local l aw, 2 

### and includes “conspiring” to commit murder. 3


### The Nevada s t a t u t es under which Pascacio-Rodrigez was convicted of conspiracy t o commit murder did not include an overt act as a n element of the off e n s e

. Pascacio-Rodriguez pleaded guilty t o and was convicted of c o nspiring to commit murder “in violation of [sections] 199.480, 200.010 [and] 200.030” of
the Nevada Revised Statute s t h a t were in effect in 2003. Section 200.010 defined murder, 4 

### and section 200.030 defined the degrees of murder and the

1 U

. S. S E N T E N C I N G G U I DE L I N E S M A N U A L § 2L1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A

) ( ii) ( 2011)

.

2 Id

. § 2L1. 2 cm t. n. 1( B ) ( iii)

. The d ef inition p rovid es in its entirety:

“Crim e of violence” means any of the f ollow ing of

f ens es und er f

ed eral, s tate, or local law : m urd er, mans laughter, k id nap p ing, aggravated as s ault, f orcible s ex of f ens es (includ ing w here cons ent to the cond uct is not given or is not legally valid , s uch as w h e r e cons ent to the cond uct is involuntary, incom p etent, or coerced ) , s tatutory rap e, sexual abus e of a m inor, robber y , ars on, extortion, extortionate exten s ion of cred it, burglary of a d w elling, or any other of f ens e und er f ed eral, s tate, or local law that has as an elem ent the us e, attem p ted us e,
or threatened us e of p hys ical f orce agains t the pers on of another. Id.

3 Id

. § 2L1. 2 cm t. n. 5. The com m e n t provid es as f ollow s : “Aid ing and Abetting, Cons p iracies , and A t t e m pts

. — P rior convictions of of fens es counted und er s ubs ection ( b) ( 1) inc l u d e t h e o f

f ens es of aid ing and abetting, cons p iring, and attem p ting, to com m it s uch of f ens es

. ” Id.

4 N E V

. R E V

. S T A T

. § 200. 010 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ( am end ed 2005)

. The 2003 vers ion of the s tatute p rovid es :


### 3 Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

### No. 12-40264

range of penalties. 5 

### S e ction 199.480(1)(b) sets forth the penalties for conspiracy
to commit murder and provides for a m inimum term of imprisonment o f not less

t h a n t wo years and a maximum term of not m ore than ten y ears. 6 

### A s e p a r a t e Nevada statute, s ection 199.490, provides: “In a ny such proceeding for violation of NRS 199.480 [which i ncludes conspiracy to commit murder], it shall not be

n e cessary to prove that any overt act was done in pursuance of such un l a w f u l conspiracy or combination.” 7 

### Nevertheless, the information by which Pascacio-Rodriguez was charged
in Nevada expressly alleged multiple overt a c t s b y Pascacio-Rodriguez or his cohort in furtherance of the conspiracy to commit murder, including the procurement o f a firearm, firing the weapon at and wounding two individuals, and fleeing from the crime scene with the firearm: COUNT I - CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER defendants did then and there me e t w i t h each other and between themselves, and each o f t hem with the other, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniousl y conspire and agree t o commit a crime, to-wit: murder, and in fu r t h e r ance of said conspiracy, Defendants did commit the acts a s set forth in Counts 2 and 3 [sic], said acts being incorporated by this reference as though fully s et forth herein.

COUNT 2 - DISCHARGING FIREARM OUT OF M OTOR VEHICLE

M urd er is the unlaw f ul k i lling of a hum an being, w ith m alice af orethought, either exp res s or im p lied , or caus ed by a controlled s ubs tance w hich w as s old , given, trad ed or otherw is e m ad e available to a p ers on in violation of chap ter 453 of N RS. T he unlaw f

ul k illing m ay be ef

fected by any of the various m eans by

w hich d eath m ay be occas ioned

. Id.

5 N E V

. R E V

. S T A T

. § 200. 030 ( 2001) ( am end ed 2007)

.

6 N E V

. R E V

. S T A T

. § 199. 480 ( 2003)

. Pas cacio- Rod riguez w as s entenced by the N evad a court to a m inim um of 24 m onths of im p ris onm ent and a m a xi m um of 72 months of im p ris onm ent.

7 N E V

. R E V

. S T A T

. § 199. 490 ( 2003)

. 

### 4 Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

### No. 12-40264
defendants d id then and there wilfully, un l a wfully, and feloniously, while i n a motor vehicle within an a rea designated by City or County Ordinance, as a populated area f or t he purpose of prohibiting the discharge of weapons, mali c i o usly or wantonly discharge, or cause a firearm to be discharg e d o u t of the m otor vehicle, the Defendants being liable under the following principles of criminal liability, to-wit: by th e D e f e n dants acting together in fu rtherance of the conspiracy s e t forth in C ount 1 above, by w hich each c onspirato r i s l i able for t he acts o f any co-conspirator in f u r t h e r a n c e o f t h e c o n s p i r a c y , b y D e f e n d a n t H E C T O R LUQUE-RAMIREZ, aka Hector Luqueramirez, shooting at and i n to the b o d i e s of t he said RICKIE SLAUGHTER and/or THOMAS EVANS with said f

irearm , by Defendant L UCIANO PASCACIO afterward attempting t o flee the scene with the firearm u sed to shoot the said RICKIE SLAUGHTER and/or THOMAS EVANS; t h e Defe n d a n t s aiding or abetting each other a s follows: by g oing together prior to t he crime to a cquire a f irearm, by going together to and from the crime scene, by fleeing the crime scene together, and by directly a nd indirec t l y counseling, encouraging, c o mmanding, inducing, a nd procuring ea c h other to commit the acts set forth herein; the said Defendants acting in concert throughout.

Pascacio-Rodriguez signed a written plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to all of the allegations in the information. 8 

### The first question we consider is whether, assuming that the Guidelines require an overt act as a n element o f c onspiracy to commit murder, the fact that Pascacio-Rodriguez was e xpressly charged w ith and pleaded guilty t o overt acts suffices to establish a crime of violence for purposes of the 16-level sentencing enhancement. A recent Supreme Court decision indicates t h a t i t d oes not. In Descamps v. United States , 9 

### which considered the meaning of “a violent felony”

8 The s igned plea agreem ent s tates in p ertinent p art: “I hereby agree to p lead guilty to:
one ( 1) count of CO N SPIRACY TO CO M M IT M U RD ER ( Felony

- N RS 200. 010, 200. 030, 199. 480) and one ( 1) count of D I SCH ARG IN G FIREARM OU T OF MO TO R VEH ICLE ( Felony

— N RS 202. 287) , a s more ful l y a l l eged i n the cha rgi ng docum en t a t t a c h e d hereto as Exhi bi t ‘1'

. ” ( em p has is ad d ed )

.

9 133 S. Ct. 2276 ( 2013)

. 

### 5 Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

### No. 12-40264

under the Armed C areer Criminal Act, the Supreme C ourt held that sentencing
courts may not c onsult additional documents (the so-called modified categorical approach) “when a defendant was convicted under an ‘indivisible’ statute— i

. e ., one not containing alternative elements—that criminalizes a broader s wath of
conduct than the relevant generic offense.” 1 0 

### Only the statute of conviction m ay be consulted if the statute is indivisible. 1 1


### The state conviction at issue in Desca m p s was for burglary under California law. 1 2 

### The Supreme Court h as long held that Congress intended for
the enumerated offenses in the A CCA, which include burglary, to refer only to
the “generic” crime, meaning “the offense as commonly unde r s t ood.” 1 3 

### The Supreme Court explained that the g eneric offense of burglary “requires an unlawful entry alo n g t he lines of b reaking and entering,” but the California

statue at issue in Descamps did not. 1 4 

### The district and appe l l a te courts in Descamps had h eld that because the defendant had admitted to the elements of generic burglary during his C alifornia prosecution, his prior conviction should

1 0 Desca m

p s , 133 S. Ct. at 2281- 82 ( cons truing the Arm ed Career C rim inal Act ( ACCA) , 18 U

. S. C. § 924( e) )

.

1 1 Id

. at 2282.

1 2 Id

. ( citing the d ef

end ant’s conviction und er C alif ornia Penal Cod e A nn. § 459 ( Wes t 2010) )

.

1 3 Id

. at 2281. But see U ni ted Sta tes v

. Ca stl em a n , N o. 12- 1371, 2014 WL 1225196, at *4- 6 ( U

. S. M ar. 26, 2014) ( exp laining that w hen Congres s us es com m on- law term s , it “intend s to incorp orate the w ell- s ettled m eaning” o f t h e t e r m s , “excep t w here that m eaning d oes not f it” ( internal quotation mark s om itted ) and us ing the com m on- law m eaning of “f orce” in

cons truing the ACCA’s def inition of “a m is d em eanor crim e of d om es tic violence”) ; S hep a rd v

. U ni ted Sta tes , 544 U

. S. 13, 26 ( 2005) ( em p loying the m od if ied categorical ap p roach that p erm itted s entencing courts to cons ult c e rtain res tricted parts of the record of the p rior conviction to determ ine if the conviction w as for a generic c r i m e e n um erated in the ACCA) ; Ta yl or v

. U ni ted Sta tes , 495 U. S. 575, 599- 602 ( 1990) ( ad op ting a f orm al categorical ap p roach bas ed on the elem ents of the generic crim e)

.

1 4 D esca m

p s , 133 S. Ct. at 2285- 86.


### 6 Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

### No. 12-40264

be considered to be a conviction f o r a v i o lent felony. 1 5 

### T he S upreme Court disagreed, holding that “ whether he [the defendant] admi t ted to breaking and entering is irrelevant.” 1 6


### In Descamps , the Supreme Court described a divisible s tatute as one that “comprises multiple, alterna t i v e v e rsions o f the crime,” 1 7 

### while an i n d ivisible statute is “one not containing alternative elements.” 1 8 

### In the present c ase, the Nevada statute of conspiracy that applies to conspiracy to commit mur der is
indivisible regarding t he requirement o f an o vert a ct: An overt a ct is not an element o f the Nevada conspiracy offense for w hich Pascacio-Rodriguez was convicted. As in Descamps , “[t]he modified [ categorical] approach

. . . has no role
to play in this case.” 1 9 

### We must therefore determine w h ether the Guidelines require an overt act as an element of a conspiracy to commit murder.
III The district court h eld that Pascacio-Rodriguez’s prior Nevada conviction for conspiracy to commit murder was a crime of violence w ithin the meaning of the Guidelines. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines and the commentary de novo. 2 0 

### Theoretically, a t least, there is m ore than one a p p r oach to construing § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). One is to di s c e r n f r o m the l a nguage that the Sentencing

1 5 Id

. at 2282- 83.

1 6 Id

. at 2286.

1 7 Id

. at 2284.

1 8 Id

. at 2281.

1 9 Id

. at 2285.

2 0 U ni ted Sta tes v

. D i a z
- Cora do , 648 F. 3d 290, 292 ( 5th C ir. 2011) ( p er curiam ) ( “[ T] his court review s d e novo t h e d i s t r i ct court’s interp retation and ap p lication of the G uid elines , includ ing w hether a def end ant’s p rior conviction qualif ies as a ‘crim e of violence’ w ithin the

m eani n g o f [ U

. S

. S. G

. § 2L1. 2]

. ” ( s econd alteration in original) ( quoting U ni t ed Sta tes v

. H erna ndez

- G a l v a n , 632 F

. 3d 192, 196 ( 5th Cir. 2011) ) ( internal quotation m ark s om itted ) ).



### 7 Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

### No. 12-40264

Commission used w hether it intended for an overt act to be an element of every conspiracy conviction, regardless of t he nature of the underlying offense, or whether the n ature of the underlying o ffense s h o u ld b e considered. Another interpretive m e t hod is to employ the categorical approach to discern the
elements of “conspiracy” or “conspiracy to commit m ur d e r , ” irrespective of the language of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). We conclude that un d e r e i t her approach, § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) does not require an overt act as an element o f conspiracy to commit murder.
A
This court has said that in determining whether a p rior conviction was for

an e numerated offense and therefore a crime o f violence w ithin the meaning of
the Guidelines, we generally employ the categorical approach, 2 1 

### as explicated by
the Supreme Court in Taylor v. U n i t e d S t ates, 2 2 

### a case that, like Descamps , construed the Armed C areer Criminal Act (ACCA). 2 3 

### W h en using t he categorical approach, we “compare the elements of the statute f orming the b asis of the defendant’s conviction with the elements of the ‘generic’ crime— i.e. , the offense

as commonly understood.” 2 4 

### In a “narrow r a n g e o f cases,” we may e mploy an

2 1 S ee U ni ted Sta tes v

. Na

jera

- M endoz a , 683 F. 3d 627, 629 (5th Cir. 2012) ( citing U ni ted Sta tes v

. M

i ra nda

- O rtegon , 670 F

. 3d 661, 663 (5t h C ir. 2012) )

. B ut see U ni ted Sta tes v

. Cha rl es , 301 F. 3d 309, 313- 14 ( 5th Cir. 2002) ( en banc) ( hold ing that, in ap plying U

. S

. S

. G

. § 4B1. 2, the court w ill cons id er the elem ents of the charges agains t a def end ant, even if they d if fer f rom the elem ents of the s tatute of conviction, beca u s e the com m entary to U

. S. S. G

. § 4B1. 2 “s tates that [ o] ther of f ens es are includ ed as crim es of violence if

. . . the cond uct s et f orth ( i

. e. , exp res s ly charged ) in the count of w hich the d ef end ant w as convicted

. . . b y its nature, p res ented a s erious p otential ris k of p hys ical injury to a n o t h e r ” ( internal quotation

m ark s om itted ) ( citing U ni ted Sta tes v

. Fi tz hugh , 954 F. 2d 253 ( 5th Cir. 1992) ) )

.

2 2 495 U

. S. 575 (1990)

.

2 3 Ta yl or , 495 U

. S. at 577 ( “In this cas e w e are called up on to d eterm ine the m eaning of the w ord ‘burglary’ as it is us ed in

. . . 18 U

. S. C. § 924( e)

. ”) ; see a l so D esca m p s , 133 S. Ct. at 2281- 82.

2 4 D esca m

p s , 133 S. Ct. at 2281.


### 8 Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

### No. 12-40264

exception t o t he categorical approach, known as the m odified categorical approach, 2 5 

### which is derived from the Supreme Court’s dec i s i o n in Shepard v. United States , 2 6 

### another case in which the Court construed the ACCA. 27 

### As already discussed, D e s c a m p s t e a c h e s t h a t t h e m o d i f i e d c a tegorical approach m ay
not be applied to an indivisible statute of conviction. The N evada statute under
which Pascacio-Rodriguez was convicted does not list potential elements in the alternative, with one alternative being t he commission of an overt act; instead,
it p rovides that “it shall not be necessary to prove that any overt act was done in pursuance of such unlawful conspiracy.” 2 8


### Neither “conspiracy” n or “murder” is defined by the G uidelines. Utilizing the categorical approach, our task is to determine t h e elements of the generic offense of c o n s piracy to commit murder. Recently, in United States v. Rodriguez , 2 9 

### this c o u r t set forth a methodology for d efining enumerated, noncommo n l aw offenses that are not defined by the Guidelines, holding that we derive the meaning of such offenses from “common usage as stated in legal and
other well-accepted dictionaries.” 3 0 

### We expressly “limit[e d ] o u r holding [in Rodriguez ] to o ffen se categories that a re n ot defined at common law” and explained that “[ w ] e l e a ve t he mechanics of how we determine the ‘generic, contemporary meaning’ of common-law offense categories for anot h e r day.” 3 1


### Because both murder and conspiracy are offe n s e s that w ere recognized by the

2 5 U ni ted Sta tes v

. G onz a l ez
- Terra z a s , 529 F. 3d 293, 297 ( 5th Cir. 2008)

.

2 6 544 U

. S. 13 ( 2005)

.

2 7 Shep a rd , 544 U

. S. at 15- 16.

2 8 N E V

. R E V

. S T A T

. § 199. 490 ( 2003)

.

2 9 711 F. 3d 541 ( 5th Cir. 2013) ( en banc)

.

3 0 See Rodri guez , 711 F. 3d at 552.

3 1 Id. at 552 n. 17.


### 9 Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

### No. 12-40264

common law, 3 2 

### Rodriguez does not govern how we a re t o c onstrue t he Guidelines
in this appeal. This court’s pre- Rodriguez p r e c e d e n t held that under the categorical approach, w e “employ[] a common s ense approach based o n the generic, contemporary meaning of the terms used in the Guidelines.” 3 3


### In divining th e g e neric, contemporary meaning, we look to a number of

sources, including federal l aw, the M odel Penal C ode, treatises, and modern
state codes. 3 4 

### At common law, it was not necessary to allege or prove an act in furtherance of a conspiracy. 3 5 

### The Supreme Co u r t h a s h e l d that, a s a general proposition, courts should construe f ederal s t a t u t e s b ased o n the assumption that C ongress intended to a dopt the common-law meaning o f statutory terms unless Congress has indicated otherwise. 3 6 

### Accordingly, the Supreme Court has
not read an overt-act r equirement into federal conspiracy offenses. 3 7 

### We note

3 2 See id

. at 558 ( n o t i n g t h a t “ b y the 1600’s

. . . jud ges

. . . had created the f elon[ y] of

m urd er” and l a t er created cons p iracy in 1664 ( quoting W A Y N E R. L A F A

V E , C R I M I N

A L L A W § 2. 1( b) (5th ed

. 2010) ) )

.

3 3 U ni ted Sta tes v. H

errera , 647 F. 3d 172, 176 ( 5th Cir. 2011) ( quoting U ni ted Sta tes v

. H erna ndez

- G a l v a n , 632 F. 3d 192, 196 ( 5th Cir. 2011) ) ( internal quotation m ark s om itted ) ; see
a l so H erna ndez

- G al v a n , 632 F. 3d at 196 ( ap plying the generic, contem p orary m eaning tes t to
a d ef end ant’s attem pt conviction to d eterm ine w hether the d is trict court erred in ap plying the § 2L1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A) ( ii) enhancem ent)

.

3 4 U ni ted Sta tes v

. Esp a rz a- Perez , 681 F. 3d 228, 229 ( 5th Cir. 2012) ( citing U n i ted Sta tes v

. Ini

guez

- Ba rba , 485 F. 3d 790, 791 ( 5th Cir. 2007) ) ; U ni ted Sta tes v

. Tel l ez
- M a rti nez , 517 F. 3d 813, 815 ( 5th Cir. 2008) ( p er curiam )

.

3 5 See U ni ted S ta tes v

. Sha ba ni , 513 U. S. 10, 13- 14 ( 1994) ( “We have cons is tently held that the com m on law und ers tand ing of cons p iracy ‘d oes not m ak e the d oing of any act other than the act of cons p iring a c o n d i t i o n of liability. ’” ( quoting N a sh v

. U ni ted Sta tes , 229 U

. S. 373, 378 ( 1913) ) )

.

3 6 See i d

. at 13 ( “ N

a sh and Si nger f

ollow the s ettled p rincip le of s tatutory cons truction that, abs ent con t r a r y i n d i cations , Congres s intend s to ad op t the com m on law def inition of

s tatutory term s. ”) ; see a l so Uni ted Sta tes v

. C a stl em an , N o. 12- 1371, 2014 WL 1225196, at *4- 5 ( U

. S. M ar. 26, 2014) ( d ef ining the term “p h y s i c a l f orce” in the ACCA in ref erence to its “es tablis hed com m on- law meaning”)

.

3 7 See i d. at 13- 15.


### 10 Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

### No. 12-40264

t hat, in T

aylor , “ conspiracy” to commit o ne of the offenses enumerated in t h e ACCA was not at issue. The Supreme Court held in Taylor that Congress had
indicated t hat it d id not intend to adopt t he common-law definition w hen it used the t erm “burglary” in the ACCA. 3 8 

### The Court discerned that Congress instead
intended “burglary” to h ave a “generic, contemporary meaning” when that term

w as used i n the ACCA. 3 9 

### The common-law definition o f conspiracy i s enlightening i n determining the generic, contemporary meaning of conspi r acy to commit murder, but it is not dispositive.
A survey of federal conspiracy statutes reveals that Congress h a s sometimes required an overt act, but m ore o ften it has not. Th e g e n e r a l fe d e ra l

co n s p ira cy p ro v isio n , w h ich a p p lie s to co n sp ira cy “ t o c o mmi t any of f ens e agai ns t th e U n ite d S ta t e s, o r to d e fra u d th e U n ite d S ta te s

. . . i n a n y m a n n e r o r fo r a n y
p u rp o se , ” re q u ire s a n o v e r t a ct. 4 0 

### I n m o re s p e c ifica lly ta ilo re d co n s p ira cy
sta tu te s, th e m a j o rity d o n o t re q u ire a n o v e r t a ct. A re v ie w o f conspiracy provisions that might generally be described as pertaining to nonviolent crimes

3 8 Ta yl or v

. U

ni ted Sta t es , 495 U

. S. 575, 598 ( 1990)

.

3 9 Id.

4 0 18 U

. S. C

. § 371 ( “If tw o or m ore p ers ons cons p ire either to com m it any of f ens e agains t the U nited States , or to d ef raud the U nited States , or any agency thereof in any m anner or f or any p urp os e, and one or m ore of s uch pers ons d o any act to ef f ect the object of the cons p iracy, each s hall be fined und er this title or im p ris oned not m ore than f ive years , or both. ”)

. 

### 11 Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 11 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

### No. 12-40264

reveals that at least 15 of such provisions require an overt act, 4 1 

### while at least
99 do not. 4 2

4 1 18 U

. S. C. § 793( g) ( cons p iracy to gather, trans m it, or los e d ef ens e inf orm ation) ; i d. § 794( c) ( cons p iracy to gather or deliver def ens e inf orm ation to aid a f

oreign governm ent) ; i d. § 831( a) ( 2) , ( 8) ( cons p iracy to obtain nuclear m aterial w ithout authorization) ; i d. § 1029( b) ( 2) ( cons piracy to com m it f raud o r a r e l a ted activity in connection w ith acces s devices ) ; i d. § 1365( e) (cons p iracy to tam p er w ith cons um er prod ucts ) ; i d. § 1511 (cons p iracy to obs truct

s tate or local law enf o r c em ent w ith intent to f acilitate an illegal g am bling bus ines s ) ; i d. § 1832( a) ( 5) ( cons p iracy to com m it thef t of trad e secrets ) ; i d. § 2153( b) ( cons piracy to d es troy

w ar m aterial, w ar prem is es , or w ar utilities ); i d. § 2154( b) ( cons piracy to p rod uce d ef ective war
m aterial, w ar p rem is es , or war utilities ) ; i d. § 2155( b) ( cons p iracy to d es troy national- d ef ens e
m aterials , national- d ef ens e p rem is es , or national- d ef ens e utilities ) ; i d. § 2156( b) ( cons p iracy to p rod uce d ef

ective national- d ef

e n se ma t e r i a l , n a t i o n al- d ef ens e prem is es , or national- d ef ens e utilities ) ; i d. § 2388( b) ( cons p iracy to com m it certain nonviolent acts af f ecting the arm ed f

orces d uring tim es of w ar) ; 42 U

. S. C. § 1761( o) (3) ( cons piracy to violate certain p rovis ions regulating the s um m er f

ood service p rogram for child ren) ; 47 U

. S. C. § 509( a) ( 5) (cons p iracy to inf luence, p rearrange, or p red eterm ine the outcom e of a rad io contes t) ; 49 U

. S. C. § 46505( e) ( cons p iracy to carry a w eap on or exp los ive on an aircraf t)

.

4 2 2 U

. S. C. § 441h ( cons p iracy to m ak e certain f raud ulent m is rep res entations in a f ed eral election cam p aign) ; 7 U

. S. C. § 192( f )

- ( g ) ( cons p iracy by pack ers or s w ine contractors to engage in certain unlaw f ul p ractices ) ; i d. § 2303( f ) ( cons p iracy t o c o m m i t unf air trad e p ractices af

f ecting p rod ucers of agricultural p rod ucts ); 8 U

. S. C. § 1253( c) ( cons p iracy to p revent or ham p er th e r e m oval of an alien subject to dep ortation) ; i d. § 1324( a) ( 1) ( A) ( v) ( I) ( cons piracy to bring in or harbor certain aliens ); i d. § 1327 (cons p iracy to aid or as sis t certain aliens to enter the U nited States ) ; 12 U

. S. C. § 617 (cons p iracy to us e the cred it, f und s , or the p ow er of certain corp orations to control the p rices of com m od ities ) ; 15 U

. S. C

. § 1 ( cons p iracy to res t r a i n inters tate trad e or com m erce) ; i d. § 2 ( cons p iracy to m onop olize trad e) ; i d. § 3 ( cons piracy to res train or m onop olize trad e or com m erce in a Territory of th e U n i t ed States

or in the D is trict of Colum bia) ; id. § 8 ( cons p iracy to res train im p ort trad e) ; i d. § 76 ( cons p iracy to im p ort res tricted item s d uring tim es of f oreign w ar) ; i d. § 77 ( cons p iracy to f urnis h f acilities

or p rivileges to s hip s or p ers ons contrary to a p res id ential p roclam a t i o n ) ; i d

. § 714m ( d ) ( cons piracy to m ak e f als e s tatem ents , com m it em bezzlem ent, com m i t l a rceny, or convert p rop erty in relation to the Com mod ity Cred it Corp oration) ; i d. § 1644( a) -( b) ( cons p iracy to
com m it cred it card fraud or to trans p ort “a counterf eit, f ictitious , altered , f

orged , los t, s tolen,

or f raud ulently obtained cred it card ” in inters tate or f oreign com m erce) ; id. § 1693n( b) ( 1)

- ( 2) ( cons piracy to us e or trans p ort in inters tate or f oreign com m erce a counterf eit, f ictitious , altered , f

orged , los t, s tolen, or f raud ulently obtained debit ins trum ent) ; 16 U

. S. C. § 831t( c) ( cons piracy to d ef

raud the Tennes s ee Valley Aut h o r i t y ) ; 18 U

. S. C. § 32( a) ( 1) -( 5) , ( 7)

- ( 8) ( cons piracy to com m it certain acts involving the d es truction of aircraf t or aircraf

t facilities ) ; i d. § 32( b ) ( 2 )

- ( 4 ) ( c o n s p iracy to d es troy or caus e d am age to a civil aircraf t regis tered in a country other than the U nited States ) ; i d. § 37( a) ( 2) ( cons p iracy to d am age the f acilities of an international airp ort) ; i d. § 38( a) ( 3) ( cons p iracy to com m it fraud involvin g a ircraf t or s pace vehicle p arts in inters tate or f oreign com m erce) ; i d. § 43( a) ( 2) ( A) , ( C) ( cons p iracy to d am age
or interf ere w ith the o p e rations of an anim al enterp ris e by prop erty d am age) ; i d. § 175( a) ( cons piracy to d evelop , p rod uce, s tock pile, trans f er, acquire, retain, or p os s es s any biological



### 12 Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 12 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

### No. 12-40264

agent, toxin, or d elivery s ys tem f or us e as a w eap on or to as s is t a f oreign state or an organization to d o s o) ; i d. § 175c( c) (1) ( cons p iracy to “k now ingly p rod uce, engineer, s ynthes ize, acquire, trans f

er directly or ind irectly, receive, pos s es s , im port, [ or] exp ort

. . . variola virus ”) ; i d. § 224 ( cons p iracy to com m it bribery in s p orting contes ts ) ; i d

. § 2 2 9 ( a) ( 2) (cons p iracy to “d evelop , p rod uce, otherw is e acquire, trans f er d irectly or ind irectly, receive, s tock p ile, retain,

ow n, [ or] p os s es s ” a chem ical w eap on) ; i d. § 286 ( cons p iracy to def raud the U nited States w ith

r e s p e c t to claim s ) ; i d. § 521( c) ( 1) , (3) ( p rovid ing a ten- year s entence enhancem ent f o r
cons p iracy to com mit a d rug- traf f ick ing crim e w hile belonging to a crim inal street gang) ; i d. § 555( d) ( cons p iracy to c o m m it certain of f ens es related to bord er tunnels or p as s ages ) ; i d. § 670( a) (6) ( cons p iracy to com m it thef t of m ed ical p rod ucts ) ; i d. § 757 ( cons p iracy to p rocure the es cap e or to aid es cap ed p ris oners of w ar or enem y aliens ) ; i d. § 799 ( cons p iracy to violate regulations of the N ational Aerona u t i c s a n d S p a c e A d m inis tration) ; id. § 832( a) , ( c) ( cons p iracy to “w illf ully p articip ate[ ] in or k now ingly p rovid e[ ] material s up p ort or res ources ” to a f oreign t e r r o r i st p o we r ’ s n u c l ear w eap ons p rogram or other w eap ons
- of

- m as s
- d est r u c t i o n p r o g r a m a n d

cons p iracy to “d evelop or p os ses s a rad iological w eap on”) ; i d. § 1028( f ) ( cons p iracy to com m it f raud or a related activity in connection w i t h i d e n t if ication d ocum ents , authentication f eatures , and inf

orm ation) ; i d. § 1030( a) ( 1) -( 6) , ( b) ( cons piracy to com m it f raud or a r elated crim e in connection w ith com p uters ) ; i d. § 1037( a) ( 5) ( cons p iracy to f als ely rep res ent ones elf

a s the regis trant of five or m ore Internet Protocol ad d res ses and to initiate c o m m e r c i a l electronic m ail mes s ages f rom thos e ad d res s es ) ; i d. § 1349 ( cons p iracy to com m it mail f raud

o r another f

raud of fens e und er chap ter 63 of title 18) ; i d. § 1362 ( cons p iracy to d am age or interf ere w ith com m unication lines , s tations , or sys tem s “op erated or controlled by the U nited S t a t e s , o r us ed or intend ed to be us ed f or m ilitary or civil d ef ens e f unctions of the U n i t e d States ”) ; i d. § 1 3 6 3 ( cons p iracy to d es troy or injure build ings or p rop erty w ithin s p ecial

m aritim e or territorial juris diction) ; i d. § 1366 ( cons p iracy to d es troy an energy f acility) ; i d. § 1368 ( cons p iracy to harm anim als us ed in law enf orcem ent) ; i d. § 1389( a) ( 1) -( 2) ( cons p iracy to k now ingly d es troy or injure the p rop er ty of a U nited States s ervicem an or an im m ed iate f am ily m em ber on account of the s ervicem an’s status ) ; i d. § 1466A ( cons p iracy t o c o m m it of f ens es related to p os s es s ion and d is tribution of obs cene v is ual rep res entations of the s exual abu s e o f c h i l d ren) ; i d. § 1512( b) -( d ) , ( k ) ( cons p iracy to tam p er w ith a w itnes s , victim , or inf orm ant) ; id. § 1513( b) , ( e) -( f ) ( cons p iracy to retaliate agains t a w itnes s , victim , or inf orm ant through p rop erty d am age or interf erence w ith em p l o y m e n t or livelihood ) ; i d. § 1521 ( cons piracy to retaliate agains t a f ed eral jud ge or f

ed eral law enf

orcem ent of

f icer by f als e claim

or s land er of title) ; i d. § 1594( b) ( cons p iracy to com m it a num ber of of f ens es involving hum an traf f ick ing, s om e of which are nonviolent) ; i d. § 1594( c) ( cons p iracy to recruit pers ons f or hum an traf

f ick ing or to benef

it f inancially f

rom hum an traf

f ick ing) ; i d. § 1956( h) ( cons p iracy t o l a und er m oney or to engage in m onetary trans actions in p rop erty derived f rom s p ecif

ied unlaw ful activity) ; i d. § 1958( a) ( cons p iracy to us e inters tate com m erce f acilities to further the

com m is s ion of a m urd er f o r hire) ; i d. § 1962( d ) ( cons piracy to engage in p rohibited rack eteering activities ) ; i d. § 1992( a) ( 5) , ( 8)

- (10) ( cons piracy to com m it certain nonviolent acts agains t a railroad carrier or m as s trans p ortation s y s tem ) ; i d. § 2252( b) ( cons p iracy to cond uct certain activities related to child p ornograp hy) ; i d. § 2252A( b) ( cons p iracy to cond uct certain activities relating to m aterial containing child pornograp hy) ; id. § 2260( b) , (c) ( 2) ( cons p iracy to com m it certain acts relating to trans p ortation of “any vis ual d ep iction of a m inor engaging in s exually exp licit cond uct” w ith intent that such a d ep iction w ill be im p orted into the U nited States ); i d. § 2271 ( cons piracy to d es troy a ves s el w ith intent to injure certain ins urers or


### 13 Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 13 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

### No. 12-40264

und erw riters ) ; i d. § 2280( a) ( 1) (C)

- (F) , ( H ) (cons p iracy to end anger a s hip ) ; i d. § 2281( a) ( 1) ( C)

- ( D ) , ( F) ( cons p iracy to end anger the s af ety of a m aritim e f

ixed p latf

orm ); i d. § 2285 ( cons p iracy to op erate a subm ers ible ves s el or sem i- s ubm ers ible ves sel w ithout nationality) ; i d. § 2291 ( 1)

- ( 3) , ( 5) , (8)

- ( 9) ( cons piracy to d es troy a ves s el or m aritim e f a c i l i t y ) ; i d. § 2320( a) ( cons p iracy to traf f ic in counterf eit g ood s or s ervices ) ; i d. § 2332g( a) , ( c) ( 1) ( cons p iracy to “k now ingly p rod uce, cons truct, otherw is e acquire, trans fer directly or ind irectly, receive, p os ses s , im p ort, [ or] exp ort” a m is sile sys tem d es igned to d es troy aircraf t) ; id. § 2332h( a) , (c) (1) ( cons p iracy to “k no w i n g l y p rod uce, cons truct, otherw is e acquire, trans f er d irectly or ind irectly, receive, p os ses s , im p ort, [ or] exp ort” a rad iological d is p ers al d evice) ; i d. § 2339B( a) ( 1) ( cons p iracy to p rovid e m ater i al s up p ort or res ources to d es ignated f oreign terroris t organizations ); i d. § 2339C ( cons piracy to f inance terroris m ) ; i d. § 2385 ( cons p iracy to ad v ocate the overthrow of the U nited States governm ent) ; id. § 2423( e) ( cons piracy to com m it certain of f ens es involving traveling or trans porting others f or the p urp o s e o f engaging in illicit s exual cond uct w ith a
m inor) ; i d. § 2442 ( cons p iracy to recruit or us e child s old iers ) ; 19 U

. S. C. § 1590 ( cons p iracy to

com m it aviation s m uggling) ; 21 U

. S. C. § 846 ( cons piracy to com m it a d rug crim e) ; i d. § 960a ( cons piracy to violate certain d rug- traf f ick ing p rovis ions w ith intent to provid e aid to f oreign terroris t group s ) ; i d. § 963 ( cons p iracy to com m it of f ens es related to the im p ort or exp ort of a controlled s ubs tance) ; i d. § 1904( c) ( 2) ( cons p iracy to violate p rovis ions regard ing trans actions related to international narcotics traf f ick ers ) ; 2 2 U

. S. C. § 8512( c) ( cons piracy to violate p rovis ions regard ing econom ic s anctions again s t Iran) ; id. § 8513( c) ( 3) , (d ) ( 2) ( cons p iracy to violate regulations regard ing f inancial ins titutions that engage in certain trans actions related to Iran) ; i d. § 8513a( g) ( 2) ( cons piracy to violate p rovis ions re l a t e d t o the im p os ition of

s anctions w ith res p ect to the f inancial s ector o f I r an) ; i d. § 8781( b) ( cons p iracy to violate certain p rovis ions related to Iran and Syria) ; id. § 8809( b) (cons p i racy to violate s tatutory p rovis ions or regulations related to Iran f reed om and counterp rolif eration) ; 26 U

. S. C. § 7214 ( cons piracy by an of

f icer or em p loyee of the U nited Stat e s to d ef raud the U nited States ) ; 31 U

. S. C. § 3729( a) ( 1) (C) ( cons p iracy to m ak e f als e claim s f

or p aym ent agains t the U nited States governm ent) ; i d. § 5332 ( cons p iracy to s m uggle currency into or out of the U nited States ) ; 38 U

. S. C. § 1987 ( cons p iracy to com m it f raud related to v eterans ’ ins urance benef its ); 42 U

. S. C

. § 1973i( c) ( cons p iracy to encourage f als e regis tration to vote or illegal v o t ing) ; i d. § 1973j( c) ( cons piracy to interf

ere w ith voting rights ) ; id. § 2 2 7 2 (a) -( b) ( cons p iracy to violate certain p rovis ions regard ing the develop m ent and control of atom ic energy) ; id. § 2273( a) ( cons p iracy to violate p rovis ions or regulations governing the d evelop m ent and control of atom ic energy f or w hich no other cri m i n a l p e n a lty is s p ecif ied ) ; i d. § 2274 ( cons p iracy to com m unicate, trans m it, or d is clos e res tricted d ata related to atom ic energy) ; i d. § 2275 (cons p iracy to receive

res tricted d ata related to atom ic ene r gy ); id. § 2277 ( cons p iracy to com m unicate or receive

res tricted d ata related to at o m i c energy w ithout authorization) ; i d. § 2284 ( cons p iracy to

s abotage nuclear f

acilities or f

uel) ; i d. § 15544( a) ( cons p iracy to d ep rive voters of a f air election ) ; 46 U

. S. C

. § 56102 ( cons p iracy to v iolate certain controls d uring w ar or national

em ergency) ; i d

. § 70506 (cons p iracy to m anuf acture, d is tribute, or p os s es a controlled

s ubs tance on a ves s el) ; 49 U

. S. C. § 32703( 4) (con s p iracy to com m it certain acts relating to od om ete r s ) ; i d

. § 60123( b) ( cons p iracy to d am age or d es troy a gas p ip eline facility or a hazard o u s l i q u i d p i p e l i n e f a cility) ; 50 U

. S. C. § 167k ( cons piracy to violate p rovis ions regulating helium gas ) ; i d. § 1705 ( cons p iracy to v iolate any licens e, ord er, r e gu l a t i o n , or prohibition is sued und er the chap ter governing international em ergency econom ic p ow ers ) ; i d. ap p

. § 462 ( cons piracy to interf

ere w ith the ad m inis tration of the s elect i v e s e r v i c e) ; i d. ap p. § 2410



### 14 Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 14 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

### No. 12-40264

Among the federal stat u t e s t h a t deal with conspiracies to commit crimes that arguably would be within the definition of a “crime of violence” in § 2L1.2, 4 3 

### eight require an overt act, 4 4 

### while 43 do not. 4 5

( cons piracy to v iolate exp ort regulations )

.

4 3 See U

. S. S E N T E N C I N G G U I DE L I N E S M A N U A L § 2L1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) & cm t. n. 1( B) ( iii) ( 2011)

.

4 4 18 U

. S. C. § 351( d ) ( cons piracy to k ill or k id nap certain congres s i o n a l , cabinet, and Sup rem e Court of

f icials ) ; i d. § 831( a) ( 1) , ( 3)

- ( 6) , ( 8) ( cons p iracy to us e or threaten v iolence to

c o nd uct a p rohibited trans action involving nuclear m aterials ) ; id. § 956 ( cons p iracy to k ill, k id nap , maim , or injure pers ons or d am age p rop erty in a foreign country) ; i d. § 1117 ( cons piracy to com m it m urd er) ; i d. § 1201( c) ( cons p iracy to k id nap ) ; i d. § 1751( d ) ( cons p iracy to k id nap or k ill the p res id ent or certain p res id ential s taf f ); i d. § 2118( d ) ( cons p iracy to com m it robbery or burglary involving a controlled s ubs tance) ; i d. § 2332( b) ( cons p iracy to kill a U nited States national while the cons p irator is outs id e of the U nited States )

.

4 5 18 U

. S. C

. § 32( a) ( 6) , ( 8 ) ( c o n s p iracy to com m it certain acts of violence lik ely to end anger the s a f

e ty of an aircraf

t) ; i d. § 32( b) ( 1) , ( 4) ( cons p iracy p erf orm “an act of violence agains t an ind ivid ual on board any civil aircraf t regis tered in a country other than the U nited States , if such act is lik ely to end anger the s af ety of that aircraf

t”) ; i d. § 33( a) ( cons p iracy to d is able or incap aci t a t e a n y d river or p ers on em p loyed in connection w ith the op eration or
m aintenance of a m otor vehicle) ; i d. § 37( a) ( 1) ( cons p iracy to com m it acts of violence at international a i r p o r t s ) ; i d. § 43( a) ( 2) ( B)

- ( C) ( cons p iracy to d am age or interf ere w ith the op erations of an anim al enterp ris e through threats of bod ily injur y ) ; i d. § 81 ( cons p iracy to

com m it ars on within s p ecial m aritim e and ter r i t o r ial j uris d iction) ; i d. § 115 (cons p iracy to inf luence, im p ed e, or retaliate agains t a f ed eral of

f icial by threatening, injuring, or k illing a f am ily m em ber) ; i d

. § 175c( a) , ( c) ( 2) ( cons p iracy to us e or threaten to us e variola virus ) ; i d. § 229( a) (cons p iracy to us e or threaten to us e a chem ical w eap on) ; i d. § 241 ( cons p iracy “to injure, op pres s , threaten, or intim id ate any p ers on in any State, T erritory, Com m onw ealth, Pos s es s ion, or Dis trict in the f ree exercis e or enjoym ent of any right or privilege s ecured to him by the Cons titution or law s of the U n i t e d States , or becaus e of his having so exercis ed the

s am e”) ; id. § 372 ( cons p iracy to im p ed e or injure an of ficer of the United States ) ; i d. § 844( m ) ( cons piracy to com m it a f elony us ing f

ire or any exp los ive) ; i d. § 892( a) ( cons p iracy to m ak e an exto r t i o n a t e e xtens ion of cred it) ; i d. § 894( a) ( cons p iracy to collect extens ions of cred it by extortionate m eans ) ; i d. § 924( o) (cons p iracy to com m it a crim e of violence or a d rug- traf f ick ing crim e w h ile carrying a f irearm ) ; i d. § 1030( a) ( 7) , ( b) (cons p iracy to com m it extortion by threatening to d am age a com p uter, im p air the conf id entiality of inf

orm ation on a com p uter,

o r a c c es s inf

orm ation on a p rotected com p uter) ; i d. § 1091 ( cons piracy to com m it genocid e) ; i d. § 1203( a) ( cons piracy to tak e hos tages ) ; i d. § 1389( a) ( 1) , (3) ( cons p iracy to as s ault or batter

a U nited States s ervicem an or an im m ed iate f am ily m em ber on account of the s ervicem an’s

s tatus ) ; i d. § 1512( a) , ( k ) ( cons p iracy to k ill or us e phys ical f orce or the threat of p hys ical f orce


### 15 Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 15 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

### No. 12-40264

A number of broadly applicable fed e r a l c o nspiracy provisions do not require an overt act, including conspiracy to bring aliens to the United States or
to harbor them after entry; 4 6 

### c onspiracy to commit r a cketeering offenses under the Racketee r Influenced and Corrupt O rganizations Act (RICO); 4 7 

### conspiracy
to commit v iolent crimes in aid of racketeering activity under RICO; 4 8 

### conspiracy

to tam per w ith the jud icial p roces s ) ; i d. § 1513( a)

- (b) , ( f ) ( cons piracy to k ill, injure, or threaten to injure, in retaliation f or tes tim ony or as s is tance to law e n f o rcem ent) ; i d. § 1594( b) ( cons piracy to co m mit a num ber of of f ens es involving hum an traf f ick ing, m any of w hich inc l u d e e n u m erated crim es of violence or involve the elem ent of the “us e, attem p ted us e, or threatened us e of p hys ical f orce agains t the p ers on of another”) ; i d. § 1752( a) ( 4) ( cons p iracy to engage in any act of p hys ical violence in a res tricted governm ent build ing or its ground s ) ; i d. § 1792 ( cons p iracy to caus e m utiny or riot at a f ed eral p ris on) ; i d. § 1951( a) ( cons p iracy to interf ere w ith com m erce by threats or violence) ; i d. § 1959 ( cons p iracy to com m it violent crim es in aid of rack eteering activity) ; i d. § 1992( a) ( 1) -( 4) , ( 6)

- ( 7) , ( 10) ( cons p iracy to com m it

a terroris t attack or other vio l e n t act agains t a railroad carrier or m as s trans p ortation

s ys tem ) ; i d. § 2192 ( cons p iracy to incite s eam en to revolt or m utiny) ; i d. § 2251 ( cons p iracy to

com m it various of

f ens es relating to s exual exp loitation of a child ) ; i d. § 2280( a) ( 1) ( A)

- ( B) , ( G ) , ( H ) ( cons p iracy to com m it acts of v iolence lik ely to e n d a n g e r s af e m aritim e navigation) ; i d. § 2281( a) ( 1) ( A)

- (B) , ( E)

- ( F ) ( c o n s p i r a cy to com m it violent acts that end anger the s af ety of a
m aritim e f

ixed p latf

orm ) ; i d. § 2291( 4) , ( 6)

- ( 7) , ( 9) ( cons piracy to interf ere w ith the op eration of a ves s el or m aritim e f acility us ing violence) ; i d. § 2332a ( cons p iracy to us e w eap ons of m as s d es truction) ; i d. § 2332b ( con s p i r a c y to com m it acts of terroris m trans cend ing national bound aries ) ; i d. § 2332f (a) ( 1) ( A ) ( cons p iracy to d eliver, p lace, d is charg e, or d etonate an exp los ive device in certain public places and governm ent f acilities w ith intent to caus e d eath

or s erious bod ily injury) ; i d

. § 2332g( a) , ( c) ( 2) ( cons piracy to us e or to p os s es s and threaten to

us e a m is s ile s ys tem d es igned to d es troy aircraf t) ; i d. § 2332h( a) , ( c) ( 1)

- ( 2) ( cons p iracy to us e
or to pos s es s and threaten to u s e a r ad iological d is p ers al d evice) ; i d. § 2340A ( cons p iracy to torture) ; i d. § 2384 ( cons p iracy to “overthrow , put d ow n, or

. . . d es troy by f orce the G overnm ent of the U nited States ”) ; i d

. § 2441 ( cons p iracy to com mit w ar crim es ) ; 42 U

. S. C

. § 2272( b) ( cons p iracy to us e or to p os s es s and threaten to us e any atom ic w eap on) ; 49 U

. S. C

. § 46502 ( cons p iracy to com m it aircraf t piracy) ; 49 U

. S. C. § 46504 ( cons piracy to interf ere w ith f light crew m em bers and attend ants through as s ault or intim id ation)

.

4 6 See 8 U

. S. C

. § 1324( a) ( 1) ( A) ( v) ( I)

.

4 7 18 U

. S. C. § 1962( d) ; see Sa l i na s v. Uni ted Sta tes , 522 U. S. 52, 63- 64 ( 1997) ( hold ing that becaus e § 1 9 6 2 ( d ) d o es not contain an overt- act requirem ent in the s tatutory text, the governm ent is not required to p rove that an overt act occurred ).

4 8 18 U

. S. C. § 1959.


### 16 Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 16 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

### No. 12-40264

to c ommit fraud offenses, i ncluding w ire and mail fraud; 4 9 

### conspiracy to commit drug-related offenses; 5 0 

### and c onspiracy to fix prices in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. 5 1


### We believe that our inquiry should be more n arrow, h owever, a nd should focus on the particular offense that is at i ssue in this appeal, which is conspiracy
to commit murder. Under federal statutes, approximately five provisions involving conspiracy to commit murder require an overt act, 5 2 

### w hile at least nine do not. 5 3

4 9 Id. § 1349; see U

ni t ed Sta tes v. Fi shm a n , 645 F. 3d 1175, 1186 ( 10th Cir. 2011) ( “[ A]

cons p iracy to com mit w ire and / or m ail f raud does not require p roof of an overt act. ”)

.

5 0 21 U

. S. C. § 846; see U ni t ed Sta tes v

. Sha ba ni , 513 U

. S. 10, 13- 15 (1994)

.

5 1 15 U

. S. C. § 1; see U ni ted Sta tes v

. Socony- Va cuum O i l Co. , 31 0 U

. S

. 150, 224 n. 59 ( 1940) ( “[ I] t is

. . . w ell s ettled that cons p iracies und er the Sherm an Act are not d ep end ent on any overt act other than the act of cons p iring. ” ( citing N a sh v

. U ni ted Sta tes , 229 U

. S. 373, 378 ( 1913) ) ).

5 2 See 18 U

. S. C. § 351( d ) ( cons p iracy to k ill or k id nap certain congres s ional, cabinet, and Su p r e m e C o urt of

f icials ) ; i d. § 956 ( cons p iracy to kill, kid nap , m aim , or injure p ers ons in a f oreign country) ; i d. § 1117 ( cons p iracy to com m it m urd er) ; id. § 1751( d ) (cons p iracy to k id nap
or k ill the Pres id ent or certain pres id ential staf f) ; i d. § 2332( b) ( c o n s p i r a c y t o k ill a U nited States national while the cons p irator is outs id e of the U nited States )

.

53 See 18 U

. S. C. § 115 ( cons p iracy to inf luence, im p ed e, or retaliate agains t a f e d e r a l of f icial by threatening, injuring, or k illing a f am ily m em ber) ; i d. § 1091( d) ( cons p iracy to k ill f or p urp os es of genocid e) ; i d. § 1512( a) ( 1 ) , ( k ) ( cons p iracy to k ill to tam per w ith the jud icial p roces s) ; i d. § 1513( a) , (f ) ( cons p iracy to k ill in retaliation f or tes tim ony or as s is tance to law enf orcem ent) ; i d. § 1959 ( cons p iracy to com mit violent crim es , includ ing m u r d e r , in aid of rack eteering activity) ; id. § 1992( a) ( 7) , ( 10) ( cons p iracy to “com m it[ ] an act, includ ing the us e of a d angerous w eap on, w ith the intent to caus e d eath or s erious bod ily injury” to a p ers on on certain m as s
- trans it prop erty) ; id. § 2280( a) ( 1) ( G )

- ( H ) ( cons p iracy to injure or k ill a p ers on in connection w ith c e r t a in acts jeop ard izing m aritim e navigation) ; i d. § 2281( a) ( 1) ( E)

- ( F ) ( cons piracy to injure or k ill a p ers on in connection with certain acts j eop ard izing a m aritim e f ixed p latf

orm ) ; i d. § 2332b( a) ( 1) ( A) , ( c) ( c o ns piracy to k ill in connection w ith an act of terroris m trans cend ing national bound aries )

. 

### 17 Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 17 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

### No. 12-40264

The Model Penal Code’s general conspiracy provision does not require an
overt act for first- or second-degree felonies. 5 4 

### The Model Penal Code provides
that murder i s a f

irst-degree felony; 5 5 

### therefore, an overt a ct i s n ot required for conspiracy to commit murder under the Model Penal Code.
An oft-cited treatise notes that, although “[a]t common law a con s p i r a cy

was punishable even though no act w as done b e yond the mere making of the agreement

. . . , most o f the states now require that an overt act in furtherance of the plan be proven for all or specified c o nspiratorial o bjectives.” 5 6 

### S imilarly, Black’ s L a w D i c tionary defines conspiracy as “[a]n a greement by two or more
persons to c ommit an u nlaw f u l a ct, coupled with a n intent to achieve the

agre e m e nt’s o bjective, and ( in most states) action or conduct that furthers the agreement; a combination for an unlawful purpose.” 5 7 

### It appears that 34 states require an overt a ct as an element of all criminal conspiracies, 5 8 

### w h i l e 1 3 sta te s

54 M ODE L P E N

A L C ODE § 5. 03( 5) ( 1962) (“O vert Act. N o p ers on m ay be convi c t e d o f

cons p iracy to com m it a crim e, other than a f elony of the f

irs t or second d egree, unles s an overt act in p urs uance of s uch cons p iracy is alleged and p roved to have been d one b y him or by a p ers on w ith w hom he cons pired

. ”)

.

5 5 I d. § 210. 2( 2)

.

5 6 W A Y N E R

. L A F A

V E , S U B STA N T I V E C R I M I N A L L A W § 12. 2( b) ( 2d ed

. 2003) ( citations

om itted )

.

5 7 B L A C K ’ S L A

W D I C T I O N

A R Y 351 ( 9th ed

. 2009)

.

5 8 A L A

. C ODE § 13A- 4- 3( a) ( 2013) ; A L A SKA S T A T

. A N N

. § 11. 31. 120( a) ( Wes t 2013) ; A R K

. C O DE A N N

. § 5- 3- 401( 2) ( Wes t 2013) ; C A L

. P E N A L C ODE § 184 ( Wes t 2013) ; C OL O

. R E V

. S T A T

. § 18- 2- 201( 2) ( Wes t 201 3 ) ; C O NN

. G E N

. S T A T

. A N N

. § 53a- 48( a) ( Wes t 2013) ; G A

. C ODE A N N

. § 16- 4- 8 ( Wes t 2013) ; H A W

. R E V

. S T A T

. § 705- 520( 2) ( Wes t 2013) ; I DA H O C O DE A N N

. § 18- 1701 ( Wes t 2013) ; 720 I L L

. C O M P

. S T A T

. A N N

. 5/ 8- 2( a) ( Wes t 2013) ; I N D

. C ODE A N N

. § 35- 41- 5- 2( b) ( Wes t 2013) ; I O W

A C ODE A N N

. § 706. 1( 3) ( Wes t 2013) ; K A N

. S T A T

. A N N

. § 21- 53 0 2 ( a ) ( Wes t 2013) ; K

Y

. R E V

. S T A T

. A N N

. § 506. 050( 1) ( Wes t 2013) ; L A

. R E V

. S T A T

. A N N

. § 14: 26( A) ( 2013) ; M E

. R E V

. S T A T

. A N N

. tit. 17- A, § 151( 4) ( 2013) ; M I N N

. S T AT

. A N N

. § 609. 175( 2) ( Wes t 2013) ; M O

. A N N

. S T A T

. § 564. 016( 4) ( Wes t 2013) ; M ON T

. C ODE A N N

. § 45- 4- 102( 1) ( 2013) ; N E B

. R E V

. S T A T

. § 2 8

- 2 0 2 ( 1 ) ( b ) ( 2013) ; N

. H

. R E V

. S T A T

. A N N

. § 629: 3( I ) ( 2013) ; N

. Y

. P E N A L L A W § 105. 20 ( M cK inney 2013) ; N

. D

. C E N T

. C ODE A N N

. § 12. 1- 06- 04( 1) (Wes t 2013) ; O H I O R E V

. C ODE A N N

. § 2923. 01( B) ( Wes t 2013) ; O KL A

. S T A T

. A N N

. tit. 21, § 423 (Wes t 2013) ; 18 P A

. C ON S

. S T A T

. A N N

. § 903( e) ( Wes t 2013) ; S. D. C O DI F I E D L A W S § 22- 3- 8 (2013) ; T E N N

. C ODE A N N

. § 39- 12- 103( d )



### 18 Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 18 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

### No. 12-40264

d o n o t re q u ire a n o v e rt a ct fo r a n y co n sp ira cy o ffe n se

. 5 9 

### T h e t h r e e re m a in in g
sta te s— A rizo n a , N e w J e rse y , a n d U ta h

— d o n o t re q u ire a n o v e rt a ct fo r ce rta in

se rio u s c r i m e s

. 60 

### In A rizo n a , n o o v e r t a ct is re q u i re d “ if th e o b je ct o f t h e

co n s p ira cy w a s to co m m it a n y fe lo n y u p o n th e p e rso n o f a n o th e r,” 6 1 

### a n d b o th
first- a n d s e c o n d

- d e g r e e m u rd e r a re fe l o n ie s in A rizo n a

. 6 2 

### In N e w J e rse y , n o

o v e rt a ct is re q u ire d f

o r “co n sp ira cy to co m m it

. . . a crim e o f th e first o r se co n d
d e g re e ,” 6 3 

### a n d “[m ] u rd e r is a crim e o f th e first d e g re e .” 6 4 

### I n U t a h , n o o v e rt a ct i s r e q u i r e d w h e n “th e o ffe n se is a ca p ita l fe lo n y , a fe lo n y a g a i n st th e p e rs o n ,

a rso n , b u rg la r y , o r ro b b e ry

. ” 6 5 

### M u rd e r is a first-d e g re e fe lo n y in U ta h

. 6 6


### W e re w e to f

o cu s so le ly o n th e re q u ire m e n ts o f a m a j o r i ty o f t h e sta te s’
la w s r e g a rd in g th e n e ce ssity o f a lle g in g a n d p ro v i n g a n o v e r t a ct in f u rth e ra n ce

o f a co n sp ira cy to c o m m it m u rd e r, w e w o u l d b e co m p e lle d to co n clu d e th a t t h e

( Wes t 2013) ; T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. § 15. 02( a) ( 2) (Wes t 2013) ; V T

. S T A T

. A N N

. tit. 13, § 1404( b) ( Wes t 2013) ; W A S H

. R E V

. C O D E A N N

. § 9A. 28. 040( 1) (Wes t 2013) ; W. V A

. C ODE A N N

. § 61- 10- 31 ( Wes t 2013) ; W I S

. S T A T

. A N N

. § 939. 31 ( Wes t 2013) ; W Y O

. S T A T

. A N N

. § 6- 1- 303( a) ( Wes t 2013)

.

5 9 D E L

. C ODE A N N

. tit. 11, §§ 511( 1) , 512( 1) , 513( 1) ( Wes t 2013) ; F L A

. S T A T

. A N N

. § 777. 04( 3) ( Wes t 2013) ; M D

. C ODE A N N

. , C R I M

. L A W § 1- 203 ( Wes t 2013) ; M I C H

. C OM P

. L A W S A N N

. § 750. 157a ( Wes t 2013) ; M I SS

. C ODE A N N

. § 97- 1- 1( 1) ( a) , (h) ( Wes t 2013) ; N E V

. R E V

. S T A T

. A N N

. §§ 199. 480, 199. 490 ( Wes t 2013) ; N

. M

. S T A T

. A N N

. § 30- 28- 2( A) ( Wes t 2013) ; O R

. R E V

. S T AT

. A N N

. § 161. 450( 1) ( We s t 2 0 1 3) ; S. C. C ODE A N N

. § 16- 17- 410 ( 2013) ; V A

. C ODE A N N

. § 18. 2- 22( a) ( Wes t 2013) ; Com m onw ea l th v

. Cerv eny , 439 N

. E. 2d 754, 759 ( M as s

. 1982) ( s tating that no overt act is neces s ary f or a cons p iracy conviction) ; Sta te v

. Bi ndyke , 220 S. E. 2d 521, 526 ( N

. C. 1975) ( s am e) ; Sta te v. Brow n , 486 A. 2d 595, 601 ( R. I. 1985) ( s am e)

.

6 0 A R I Z

. R E V

. S T

AT

. A N N

. § 13- 1003( A) ( 2013) ; N

. J. S T A T

. A N N

. § 2C: 5- 2( d ) ( Wes t 2013) ; U T A H C O DE A N N

. § 76- 4- 201 (Wes t 2013)

.

6 1 A R I Z

. R E V

. S T AT

. A N N

. § 13- 1003( A)

.

6 2 Id. §§ 13- 1104 to

- 1105.

6 3 N .J. S T AT

. A N N

. § 2C: 5- 2( d )

.

6 4 Id. § 2C: 11- 3( b) ( 1)

.

6 5 U T A H C ODE A N N

. § 76- 4- 201.

6 6 Id. § 76- 5- 203( 3) ( a)

. 

### 19 Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 19 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

### No. 12-40264

g e n e ric, co n te m p o r a ry d e fin i tio n o f co n sp ira cy to co m m it m u rd e r in clu d e s th e

re q u ire m e n t o f a n o v e rt a ct. H o w e v e r, to d o so w o u ld ig n o re th e la w s o f 1 6
sta te s, a n u m b e r o f fe d e r a l la w s, a n d th e M o d e l P e n a l C o d e , n o n e o f w h ich

c o n ta in s a n o v e rt-a ct re q u ire m e n t fo r co n sp ira cy to co m m it m u rd e r. A fte r

su rv e y i n g th e v a rio u s so u rce s ty p ica lly co n su lte d i n a p p l y in g t h e ca te g o rica l

a p p ro a ch , it a p p e a rs to u s th a t, a lb e it slig h t, th e w e ig h t o f a u th o rity in d ica te s th a t co n sp ira c y to co m m it m u rd e r d o e s n o t re q u ire a n o v e rt a ct a s a n e le m e n t. B
It is n o t cle a r, h o w e v e r, w h e th e r th is co u r t’s p re ce d e n t re q u i re s th a t w e

a p p ly th e ca te g o rica l a p p r o a ch in d isce rn in g th e e l e m e n ts o f a co n sp ira cy , a s th a t t e r m is u se d i n § 2 L 1 .2 (b )(1 )(A )(ii). In U n ited S ta t es v

. R o d rig u ezE s ca ren o , 6 7 

### w e h e ld t h a t, in in te rp re tin g § 2 L 1 .2 ( b )(1 )(A )(i), a t le a st w ith re sp e ct
to a co n sp ira cy to co m m it a f e d e ra l d ru g tra ffick in g o ffe n s e , w e d o n o t fo llo w t h e “a n a ly tica l ro u te ” o f s e e k i n g a crim e ’s “‘g e n e ric, co n t e m p o ra ry m e a n in g [,]’”

w h ich w o u ld in c lu d e “e x a m in [in g ] ‘th e M o d e l P e n a l C o d e , tre a tise s, fe d e ra l a n d

sta te la w , d i c t i o n a rie s, a n d th e U n ifo rm C o d e o f M ilita ry J u stice ’ fo r a d e fin itio n .” 6 8 

### In R o d rig u ez- E sca ren o , th e d e fe n d a n t h a d a p rio r c o n v ictio n

u n d e r 2 1 U

. S .C

. § 8 4 6 fo r co n sp ira cy to c o m m it a d ru g tra ffick in g o ffe n se

. 6 9 

### W e

n o te d t h a t, a lth o u g h “‘m o st ju risd i ctio n s’ re q u i r e p ro o f o f a n o v e rt a ct to

e sta b lish a c o n sp ira cy ,” 7 0 

### n o o v e rt a ct is re q u ire d fo r co n v ictio n o f a c o n sp ira cy

u n d e r § 8 4 6

. 7 1 

### T h e d e fe n d a n t a rg u e d th a t, b e ca u se th e re w a s n o o v e rt-a ct

6 7 700 F. 3d 751 ( 5th Cir. 2012)

.

6 8 Rodri guez

- Esca reno , 700 F. 3d at 753 ( quoting U ni ted S ta t es v

. Sa nti esteba nH erna ndez , 469 F. 3d 376, 379 ( 5th Cir. 2006) )

.

6 9 Id

.

7 0 Id

. ( quoting U

ni ted Sta tes v

. M

endez

- Ca sa rez , 624 F. 3d 233, 240 ( 5th Cir. 2010) )

.

7 1 Id

. ( citing U

ni ted Sta tes v. Sha ba ni , 513 U

. S. 10, 13- 14 ( 1994) )

.



### 20 Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 20 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

### No. 12-40264

re q u ire m e n t, a co n sp ira cy u n d e r § 8 4 6 w a s n o t w ith i n t h e g e n e ric,

co n t e m p o ra ry m e a n in g o f “co n sp ira cy

. ” W e r e j e c t e d th a t a rg u m e n t, h o ld in g th a t th e re is n o n e e d to “fin d m e a n in g fo r th e o f fe n se [o f co n sp ira cy to co m m it

a d ru g tra ffick in g o ffe n se ] o u t sid e o f th e G u id e lin e s.” 7 2 

### W e re a so n e d th a t “[t]h e G u id e l i n e s th e m se lv e s t e ll u s th a t a c o n v i c t i o n f o r a co n sp i r a cy to c o m m it a fe d e ra l d ru g tra ffick in g o ffe n se w ill ju stify a p p lica tio n o f th e e n h a n ce m e n t” a n d
th a t “A p p lica tio n N o te 5 is a cle a r sta te m e n t b y th e S e n te n cin g C o m m issio n th a t th e e n h a n ce m e n t a p p lie s to c o n sp ira cie s to co m m it f e d e ra l d ru g tra ffick in g

o ffe n se s.” 7 3 

### W e fu rth e r e x p la in e d t h a t “ [ f]o r u s, n o n e th e le s s, to se a rch fo r a
g e n e ric m e a n i n g o f ‘ co n sp i ra cy ’ b y e m p lo y in g a d o ctrin e g e n e ra lly u se d to d e te rm in e w h e th e r a s ta te co n v ictio n is o f a n e n u m e r a te d crim e , w o u ld o n ly
b e clo u d w h a t is cle a r fro m th e G u id e lin e itse lf.” 7 4


### A l t h o u g h o u r d e cisio n in R o d rig u ez-E sca ren o sta te d i n a fo o tn o te th a t “[w ]e im p ly n o p o sitio n o n th e r e le v a n ce o f th is r e a so n in g to a p p ly in g t h e

e n h a n ce m e n t to co n v ictio n s fo r c o n s p i r a cie s to co m m i t sta te -la w o ffe n se s,” 7 5


### th e re is n o b a sis fo r co n clu d in g th a t t h e S e n te n cin g C o m m i s s i o n in te n d e d to

cre a te a d ich o to m y in § 2 L 1 .2 b e tw e e n co n sp ira cy co n v i ctio n s u n d e r fe d e ra l la w

a n d c o n sp ira cy c o n v i ctio n s u n d e r sta te la w

. T h e te x t o f A p p lica tio n N o te 5 ,

w h ich st a te s th a t “[p ]rio r co n v ictio n s o f o ffe n s e s c o u n te d u n d e r su b se ctio n (b )(1 )
in c lu d e t h e o ffe n se s o f

. . . co n sp irin g

. . . to co m m it s u ch o f f e n se s,” 7 6 

### d o e s n o t d ra w a d istin ctio n b e tw e e n fe d e ra l a n d sta te crim e s a n d d o e s n o t r e a s o n a b ly

p e rm i t co u rts to d ra w su c h a d istin ctio n

.

7 2 Id

.

7 3 Id

. at 753- 54.

7 4 Id

. at 754.

7 5 Id

. at 754 n. 2.

7 6 U

. S. S E N T E N C I N G G U I DE L I N E S M A N U A L § 2L1. 2 cm t. n. 5 ( 2011)

. 

### 21 Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 21 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

### No. 12-40264

W e d o n o t q u a rre l w ith th e u ltim a t e h o ld i n g in R o d rig u e z
- E s ca ren o

. R a th e r , it h ig h l ig h t s th e fa ct th a t co n sid e ra b le w e ig h t m u st b e g i v e n to t h e

n u m b e r o f se rio u s fe d e ra l co n sp i ra cy o ffe n se s th a t d o n o t r e q u ire a n o v e rt a ct. O u r d e cisio n in R o d rig u ez-E sca ren o co u n se ls a g a i n st si m p ly ta lly in g t h e

n u m b e r o f sta te la w s th a t re q u ire a n o v e rt a ct a n d th o s e th a t d o n o t. W e a re a lso p e r su a d e d th a t se rio u s fe d e ra l c o n sp ira cy crim e s, su ch a s a

co n s p ira cy to m u rd e r a fa m ily m e m b e r o f a fe d e ra l o fficia l; 7 7 

### co n s p ira cy to k ill

a w itn e ss, v ictim , o r i n f o rm a n t to p re v e n t t e stim o n y o r in re ta lia tio n f o r
te stim o n y ; 7 8 

### a n d o th e r co n sp ira cie s a im e d a t ca u sin g d e a th o r se r io u s b o d ily
in j u ry 7 9 

### w e re u n d o u b te d ly i n t e n d e d b y th e S e n te n cin g C o m m issio n to r e su lt in

a 1 6

- le v e l e n h a n ce m e n t u n d e r § 2 L 1 .2 , re g a rd le ss o f w h e t h e r th e sta tu te o f

co n v i c tio n h a s a n o v e rt a c t a s a n e le m e n t o f t h e o f fe n se

. W e se e n o b a sis f o r

co n c lu d in g th a t th e C o m m issio n in te n d e d o ffe n se s u n d e r sta te la w to b e tre a te d
d iffe re n tly fro m s im ila r o r id e n tica l o ffe n se s u n d e r fe d e ra l la w

. T h e G u id e lin e s

re g a r d in g a co n s p ira cy to co m m it a “crim e o f v io l e n ce ” d o n o t e x p re ssly
d iffe re n tia te b a se d o n w h e th e r a n o v e rt a ct w a s r e q u ire d b y th e s t a tu te o f

co n v i c tio n

. T h is is tru e re g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r th e s ta tu t e o f co n v ictio n w a s a fe d e ra l o r a s ta te la w

. W e d o n o t s e e a re a so n e d b a s is fo r co n s t r u in g t h e G u id e l i n e s t o m e a n th a t th e a d v iso ry r a n g e o f p u n ish m e n t d iffe rs d e p e n d in g

u p o n w h e th e r a co n sp ira to r to m u rd e r a f a m ily m e m b e r o f a fe d e ra l o fficia l w a s
p ro se cu te d u n d e r sta te o r f e d e ra l l a w , e v e n if th e sta te a n d fe d e ra l la w s h a d t h e

s a m e e sse n tia l e le m e n ts. T h e re is n o i n d i ca tio n th a t th e S e n te n c i n g C o m m issio n in te n d e d th e d e f in itio n o f “co n sp ira c y ” a s u se d in A p p lica tio n N o te

7 7 18 U

. S. C. § 115.

7 8 Id. §§ 1512( a) , ( k) , 1513( a) , ( f )

.

7 9 See sup ra notes 44- 45 and accom p anying text.


### 22 Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 22 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

### No. 12-40264

5 to v a r y , d e p e n d in g u p o n w h e th e r th e co n v ictio n w a s o b ta in e d u n d e r fe d e ra l

o r sta te la w

. C
We c ann o t r e a so n a b ly c o n clu d e th a t t he Sent enc i ng Commi s s i on i nt ended “co n sp ira cy ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f A p p l ica t io n N o te 5 to re q u ire a n o v e rt a ct

a s a n e le m e n t o f e a ch a n d e v e ry c o n sp i ra cy o ffe n se

. 8 0 

### The language and context of § 2 L1.2 indicate that a n o vert act is not required for a conspiracy to commit
murder. Alternatively, we conclude that t he generic, contemporary meaning of “conspiracy to c ommit mu r d e r” does not require an overt act. We note the possibility that there i s no “generic, contemporary” meaning of “conspiracy to commit murder” in l ight of the marked differences between the 34 state laws of conspiracy t h at require an overt act for every offense, on one h and, and the 16
state laws and the numerous federal laws that do not have such a requirement.
We conclude that con s p i r a c y to commit murder, within t h e meaning of Application Note 5 of § 2L1.2, does not require an overt act as an element of the offense.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment o f the d istrict court.

8 0 But see U

ni ted S ta tes v

. G ore , 636 F. 3d 728, 745 ( 5th Cir. 2011) ( H igginbotham , J. , concurring) ( obs erving in a cas e cons truing the res id ual claus e of the A CCA regard ing a Texas conviction f

or aggravated robbery, and not cons truing the G uid elines , that “[ i] n my view , the generic, contem porary d ef inition of a crim inal cons p iracy includ es a requirem ent that at leas t
one of the cons p irators tak e an overt act in f urtherance of

the agreem ent”)

. 

### 23 Case: 12-40264 Document: 00512593851 Page: 23 Date Filed: 04/11/2014