PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. DU STI N LER OY I NG LE,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 5091

OR DER Fi l ed J ul y18, 2006 B efor e M UR P HY , EBEL , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. O n th e C o u rt’s o w n m o tio n , the O rd e r a n d Ju d g m e n t filed Ju ly5 , 2 0 0 6 , w ill be publ i s hed. T he publ i s hed opi ni on, fi l ed nunc pr o tunc t o J ul y5, i s att ache d. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt E li sab eth A . S h u m ak er, C lerk B y: D ep u tyC lerkA ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly5,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. DU STI N LER OY I NG LE,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 5091

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F O R T H E N O R T H E R N D I S T R I C T O F O K L A H O MA

( D. C. No . 0 5 - CR- 1 1 9 - EA ) S ub m i t t ed o n the bri efs: * Paul D . B runt on, Feder al Publ i c D efe nder , J ul i a L. O ’ C onnel l , A s s i s t antFeder al Publ i c D efe nder , O ffi ce of t he Feder al Publ i c D efe nder , T ul s a, O kl ahoma, for D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. D avi d E . O ’ M ei l i a, U ni t ed St at es A t t orney , N or thern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma, T i m ot hyL . Faerber , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney , N or thern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma, and R i char d A . Fr i edman, A ppel l at e Sect i on, C r i m i nal D i vi s i on, U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce, W as hi ngt on, D . C . , forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee. B efor e M UR P HY , EBEL , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.- 2-

M UR P HY , C i r cui tJ udge.

I . I nt roduct i on W hen app el l ant D ust i n L eroyIngl e enter ed a p l ea of gu i l tyt o the offen se o f b eing a felon in p o sses sion o f a firearm , in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ), t he di s t r i ctcour tdet erm i ned he mustbe det ai ned pendi ng s ent enci ng. A ccor di ng t o t he di s t r i ctcour t , t he offens e i s a “c r i m e of vi ol ence ” as t he t erm i s us ed i n t he B ai l R eform A ctof 1984, 18 U . S. C . §§ 3141- 56, and M r . I ngl e’ s det ent i on p en d ing sen tenc ing w as m an d atoryu n d er § 3 1 4 3 (a)(2). M r . I ngl e cha l l enges t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s det ent i on or deri n thi s appea l pur s uantt o R ul e 9 of the Feder al R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e. U pon cons i der at i on of the part i es ’ br i efs and s ubm i s s i ons , w e conc l ude thata vi ol at i on o f § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) i s n o ta c r i m e o f v i o l e n c e u n d e rt h e s t a tu t o ryd e fi n i t i o n . We t her efor e r ever s e the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s or derand r emand forfur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on. I I . Backg r ound A g r a n d j u r yc h a r g e d M r . I n g l e wi th b e i n g a fe l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f fi r e a r ms and amm uni t i on, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . T he i ndi ctm ental l eged t hatM r . I ngl e pr evi ous l yhad bee n convi ct ed of a n O kl ahoma fel onyoffe ns e of unl aw ful pos s es s i on of a c ont r ol l ed drug. A ft erhi s i ni t i al appea r ance befor e theT he governm ent ’ s br i ef s t at es t hatM r . I ngl e pl eade d gui l typur s uantt o a 1 p lea a g ree m en t. A p lee. B r. at 3. T h is st atem en t i s co n tr aryto M r. Ing le’s Pet i t i on t o E nt erPl ea of G ui l t y , A pl t . A pp. at14, and hi s aff i r m at i ons dur i ng t he p le a h e a ri n g , i d. at50- 51.

- 3- m agi s t r at e j udge on M ar ch 6, 2006, he w as r el eas ed on an uns ecur ed $10, 000 bond undert he s upervi s i on of the U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce. M r. In g le e n ter e d a p lea o f g u iltyto th e c h a rg e , w ith o u t a p lea a g re e m e n t, on A pr i l 7, 2006. A thi s pl ea he ar i ng, t he di s tr i ctcourtdet erm i ned that“bas ed on 1 [i t s ] anal y s i s of s ect i on 3143( a) ( 2) , [M r . I ngl e] m us tbe det ai ned i m m edi at el y . ” A pl t . A pp. at72. D efe ns e couns el m ade a br i ef a r gum entagai ns tt he di s tr i ct c o u rt ’s d e te rm in a tio n , i d. at71; governm entcouns el di d notcomm enton the i s s ue, i d. at 71 -73 . T h e c o u rtind icated it s d esire fo r an ap p ea l of the ru li n g to this co u rt beca us e i t“w oul d l i ke nothi ng m or e than gui dance on thi s i s s ue. ” Id. T h e c o u rt d e n ied M r. In g le’ s la ter re q u e st fo r a sta yo f th e d e ten tio n o rd e r. M r. In g le a p p e a le d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s o rd e r. II I. A n a ly sis M r . I ngl e’ s appea l pr es ent s a s i ngl e l egal ques t i on: w hethert he offens e of being a felon i n p ossess i on of a fi rearm , i n v i olat i on of 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g) (1) , i s a “cr i m e of vi ol ence ” as t hatt erm i s defi ned i n 18 U . S. C . § 3156( a) ( 4) ( B ) of the B ai l R eform A ct( “the A ct ”) . “Thi s i s a ques t i on of the cons truct i on and appl i cabi l i t yof a feder al s t atut e thatw e r evi ew de novo. ” United S tates v. R og ers , 3 7 1 F . 3 d 1 2 2 5 , 1 2 2 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (qu o tat ion o m itted).- 4-

A . C onse quences und er t he B ai l R eform A ct O urdeci s i on has s i gni fi cantcons equenc es undert he pr ovi s i ons of the A ct for18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) defe ndant s atdi ffe r ents t ages of the cr i m i nal j us t i ce pr oces s : aw ai t i ng t r i al , pendi ng s ent enci ng, and pendi ng appea l . T he A ct cont empl at es vary i ng l evel s of s crut i nyfordefe ndant s as t heypr ocee d thr ough t he c o u rt s y s te m . See Un i t e dS ta t e s v . Ki l ls E n e my , 3 F. 3d 1201, 1203 ( 8th C i r . 1993) ( contr as t i ng pr etr i al r el eas ees w i th convi ct ed per s ons aw ai t i ng s ent ence , and not i ng t hatt he l at t erar e “no l ongerent i t l ed t o a pr es um pt i on of i nnocenc e or pr es um pt i vel yent i t l ed t o [thei r ] fr eedom”) . N everthel es s , a defendantchar ged w ith a c ri m e o f

v io le n c e m u s t m e e t a h e ig h te n e d s ta n d a rd a t e a c h le v e l. G e n e ra lly , the A c t allo w s th e d e ten tio n o f a d e fe n d a n t “p e n d in g trial o n lyif a ju d icia l o ffice r fin d s ‘th a t n o c o n d iti o n o r c o m b in a tio n o f c o n d iti o n s w ill r eas onabl yas s ur e the appe ar ance of the per s on as r equi r ed and the s afe tyof any ot herper s on and the comm uni t y . ’ ” Uni t ed Stat es v. C is ner os , 328 F. 3d 610, 616 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (q u o tin g 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 1 4 2 (e )). W h e n a c rim e o f v io len c e is i nvol ved, how ever , a j udi ci al offi cerm us thol d a hea r i ng on m ot i on of the governm entt o det erm i ne i f anycondi t i ons w oul d perm i tt he s afe r el eas e of the ch arg ed d efen d an t. § 3 1 4 2 (f)(1)(A ). P e n d in g s e n te n c in g , th e p re s u m p tio n is th a t a d e fe n d a n t w ill b e d e ta in e d . M os tdefe ndant s , how ever , m aybe r el eas ed upon a s how i ng “bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hatt he per s on i s notl i kel yt o fl ee orpos e a da ngert o the- 5-

safetyo f a n yo ther p erso n o r th e c o m m u n ity . ” 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 1 4 3 (a)(1). I n c o n tra st, a d e fe n d a n t w h o h a s b e e n fo u n d g u iltyo f a c rim e o f

v io len c e a n d w h o is a w a iti n g im p o sitio n o r e x e c u tio n o f se n ten c e is to b e “ d e tain e d u n les s . . . th e re is a s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood t hata mot i on foracqui t t al ornew tr i al w i l l be gr ant ed; or. . . an att or neyfort he G overnm enthas r ecomm ended thatno s ent ence of i m pr i s onm entbe i m pos ed on the per s on, ” and ther e i s “cl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hatt he per s on i s notl i kel yt o fl ee orpos e a da ngert o anyotherper s on o r th e c o m m u n ity . ” § 3 1 4 3 (a)(2). P en d ing ap p ea l, b ail fo r m o st de fe n d an ts m u st “b e d en ied u n less the c o u rt fin d s th a t th e a p p e a l ‘ra ise s a su b sta n tial q u e stio n o f law o r fa c t li k e lyto re su lt i n r ever s al oran or derfora new t r i al . ’ ” Uni t ed Stat es v. A f f l eck , 765 F. 2d 944, 952 ( 10t h C i r . 1985) ( quot i ng 18 U . S. C . § 3143( b) ( 2) ) . T he pr ovi s i on appl i cabl e t o a defe ndantfound gui l t yof a c r i m e of vi ol ence and s ent ence d t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm ents t at es s i m pl y“[t ] he j udi ci al offi cers hal l or derthat[the d efen d an t] . . . b e d etaine d . ” § 3 1 4 3 (b)(2 ). B . C l as s i fi cat i on of § 922( g) ( 1) O u r p rio r c a se law h a s n a rro w e d o u r ta sk o f d e c id in g th e a p p ro p ria te c las sifica tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ); it ha s s e t o u t th e p ro p e r a n a lytic f ra m e w o rk a n d re so lv e d se v e ra l es se n tial iss u e s. S e c tio n 9 2 2 (g )(1 ) m a k e s it unl aw ful fora per s on pr evi ous l yconvi ct ed of a fel onyt o pos s es s a fi r earm or a m m u n itio n . See Uni t ed Stat es v. C ol onna , 3 6 0 F .3 d 1 1 6 9 , 1 1 7 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ).T he def i ni t i on of “c r i m e of vi ol ence ” i n 18 U . S. C . § 3156( a) ( 4) i ncl udes 2 t w o ot hert ypes of offens es : an “offens e thathas as an el ement. . . t he us e, a ttem p ted u se , o r th re a ten e d u se o f p h y sic a l fo rc e a g a in st th e p e rso n o r p ro p e rty of another , ” s ee § 3 1 5 6 (a )(4 )(A ); a n d a se x u a l ex p lo itatio n o ffe n se fa lli n g w ith in th re e s p e c ifie d c h a p te rs o f T itle 1 8 , U n ite d S ta te s C o d e , § 3 1 5 6 (a )( 4 )( C ). B ecause an un l aw ful possess i on of a fi rearm do es not fi tw i thin these de fi nit i on s, s ee § 3 1 5 6 (a )( 4 )( B ), t h e re is n o n e e d to d is c u s s th e m . See R og ers , 371 F. 3d a t 1 2 2 8 .

- 6- T hi s offe ns e i s a cr i m e of vi ol ence forpurpos es of the A cti f i ti s an “offens e that i s a fe l onyand that , byi t s natur e, i nvol ves a s ubs t ant i al r i s k thatphy s i cal for ce agai ns tt he per s on orpr opert yof anotherm aybe us ed i n the cour s e of c om m i t t i ng th e o ffe n se .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 1 5 6 (a )(4 )(B ). W e u se a c a teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h to 2 id e n tif ya c ri m e o f

v io le n c e . R og ers , 371 F. 3d at1228 n. 5. I n otherw or ds , t he co u rtd o es n o t con side r th e “ p arti cu lar cir cu m stan ce s su rrou n d ing ” the d efen d an t’ s a lle g e d v io la tio n . Id. T he courtl ooks att he “ge ner i c” offens e, “nott he under l y i ng ci r cumst ance s . ” Id. (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). T h u s, th e q u e stio n is w hethert he fe l on- i n- pos s es s i on offe ns e, as a w hol e, s houl d be cons i der ed a cr i m e of vi ol ence . U nder18 U . S. C . § 3156( a) ( 4) ( B ) , t he el ement s of a “ cr i m e of vi ol ence ” ar e: ( i ) T he offens e mustbe a f el ony ; ( i i ) t he offens e musti nvol ve a r i s k thatphy s i cal for ce maybe us ed ag ains t th e p erso n o r pro p ertyo f a n o ther; ( i i i ) t hatr i s k m us tr es ul tfr om t he natur e of the offens e; ( i v) t he r i s k m us tbe thatt he us e of phy s i cal for ce w oul d occuri n the cour s e of the offens e; and- 7-

(v ) th e risk m u st b e su b sta n tial. Id. a t n .4 (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). T h e e x is te n c e o f th re e o f e le m e n ts is in c o n te s tib le . U n q u e s tio n a b ly, th e o ffe n s e is a fe lo n y . See 18 U . S. C . § 3156( a) ( 3) ( defi ni ng “felon y ” a s an o ffen se p u n isha b le bya m ax im u m term o f im p ri so n m en t of m o re th a n o n e y e a r); id . § 9 2 4 (a)(2) (p rov iding fo r i m p ri so n m en t of u p to ten y ea rs fo r a viol at i on of § 92 2(g)) . A l so, a fel on i n p ossess i on of a g un present s s o me r i s k of p h y s ic a l fo rc e b e in g u s e d a g a in s t a n o th e r. See R og ers , 371 F. 3d at1229; see also Uni t ed Stat es v. Lane , 252 F. 3d 905, 906 ( 7th C i r . 2001) ( “A per s on w ho has been convi ct ed of c om m i t t i ng a fe l ony. . . i s no doubtm or e l i kel yt o m ake a n i l l egal u s e o f a fir e a rm th a n a n o n fe lo n , a n d th e ille g a l u s e is lik e ly to in v o lv e v io le n c e . O t herw i s e i tw oul d be a l i t t l e di ffi cul tt o s ee w hybei ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a fire a rm is a c rim e .”); United S tates v. D i l lard , 214 F. 3d 88, 93 ( 2d C i r . 2000) ( pos s es s i on of a gun gr eat l yi ncr eas es one’ s abi l i tyt o i nfl i ctharm on other s and th e re fo re in v o lv e s s o m e risk o f v io len c e ). M o re o v e r, w e h a v e p re v io u sly re c o g n ize d th a t “[ if] o n e u se s a g u n in a n a c t o f v io len c e , tha t v io len c e n e c e ss a rily occur s dur i ng t he pos s es s i on of the gun. ” R og ers , 371 F. 3d at1230 ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T hus , a “r i s k of phy s i cal for ce c r eat ed bythe [i l l egal ] pos s es s i on of a fi r earm . . . occur s i n ‘ t he cour s e of c om m i t t i ng’ the w eapon- offe ns e. ” Id. A ccordi ng l y , w e need t o co nsi der onlytw o elem ents : w hetherthe ri sk re su lts f ro m th e c a teg o ric a l n a tu re o f th e o ffe n se a n d w h e th e r th e risk is s ubs t ant i al . T hi s cour thas notr eac hed thes e tw o ques t i ons i n the cont extof a- 8-

§ 922( g) ( 1) offe ns e. I n R og ers , w e d e c id e d th a t p o ss e ss io n o f a fire a rm w h ile s ubj ectt o a pr ot ect i on or derand pos s es s i on of a f i r earm fol l ow i ng m i s demeanor c o n v ictio n o f

d o m e stic v io len c e a re “ c rim e s o f v io len c e ” fo r p u rp o se s o f th e B a il R e fo rm A c t. Id . at1230. B utw e expl i ci t l yl i m i t ed ourdi s cus s i on t o the offens es befor e us i n t hatcas e and de cl i ned t o r es ol ve the i s s ues i n r el at i on t o pos s es s i on of a fir e a rm b ya c o n v ic te d fe lo n . Id. “Thi s di ffe r i ng cont exti s key . ” Id . a t 1 2 2 9 . N evert hel es s , w e have ampl e gui dance on the i s s ues . M anyother ci r cui tcour t s have pr ovi ded thought ful di s cus s i ons on the natur e of the fel on- i n- pos s es s i on offe ns e and the s ubs t ant i al i tyof the r i s k. T he maj or i tyof t hese co urt s have d et erm i ned t hat a § 92 2(g)( 1) offen se does n ot s at i sfythese e le m e n ts . See United S tates v. B ow ers , 4 3 2 F .3 d 5 1 8 , 5 2 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 3 9 9 F .3 d 1 2 9 7 , 1 3 0 2 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (p e r c u ria m ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Tw i ne , 3 4 4 F .3 d 9 8 7 , 9 8 7 -8 8 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (p e r c u ria m ); Lane , 252 F. 3d a t 9 0 6 -0 8 ; Uni t ed Stat es v. Si ngl eton , 1 8 2 F .3 d 7 , 1 6 (D .C . C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). See a lso Uni t ed Stat es v. Har don , N o. 98- 1625, 1998 W L 320945, at*1 ( 6th C i r . J une 4, 1 9 9 8 ) ( u n p u b lis h e d ). T h e S e c o n d C ir c u it h a s h e ld to th e c o n tr a ry. See D i l lard , 214 F. 3d at104. W e ar e per s uaded bythe r at i onal e of the maj or i typos i t i on. C oncerni ng t he ca t egor i cal natur e of the cr i m e, i ti s appar entthat § 922( g) ( 1) offe ns es pr es ent“numer ous fac tual s cena r i os . ” Johns on , 399 F. 3d at1301. T he offens e appl i es t o per s ons w i th gr eat l ydi ver s e pr opens i t i es and p re v io u slyc o n v icte d o f a w id e ra n g e o f

c o n d u c t. “[ N ]o t all fe lo n s a re p o ten tially- 9-

m or e vi ol entt han non- fel ons . N um er ous fel oni es i nvol ve ec onom i c cr i m es or r egul at or yoffe ns es w hi ch, w hi l e s er i ous , do notent ai l a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of phy s i cal for ce. ” Si ngl et on , 1 8 2 F . 3 d a t1 5 . “ [ A] n d e x - fe l o n s h a v e th e s a me m ot i ves as l aw ful pos s es s or s of fi r earm s t o pos s es s a fi r earm –s el f- defe ns e, hunt i ng, gun col l ect i ng, and t ar getpr act i ce. ” Lane , 2 5 2 F . 3 d a t9 0 6 . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e c o n c lu d e th a t a fe lo n -in -p o ss e ss io n o ffe n se u n d e r § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ) is n o t in h e re n tly a cr i m e of vi ol ence . F o r c o in c id in g re a so n s, w e a lso d e c id e th a t th e m e re p o ss e ss io n o f a fire a rm b ya c o n v icte d fe lo n d o e s n o t cr e a te a su b sta n tial risk th a t p h y sic a l fo rc e w ill b e u se d a g a in st th e p ro p e rty orper s on of another . . . . [L]a r ge number s of fe l oni es i nvol ve economi c, r egul at or y , orot hercr i m es thatdo notent ai l phy s i cal vi ol ence atal l . T hus . . . al though ther e mi ghtbe s o me i ncr eas ed c h a n c e o f

v i o l e n c e fl o w i n g f

r o m th e p o s s e s s i o n o f a w e a p o n b y a fel on , t hat r i sk cou l d si m plyno tbe clas si fi ed as s ubs tant i al . R og ers , 371 F. 3d at1229 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ( expl ai ni ng the r eas oni ng of the Si ngl et on and Lane d ec isi o n s). W e ac know l edge the frus t r at i on of the di s tr i ctcourti n i t s comm entthat “[t ] he br oad cove r age of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) –i ncl udi ng both vi ol entand non- vi ol entfel ons –pr obabl ym akes the mostcorr ectans w ert o the ques t i on of w hethercomm i s s i on of the offens e cons t i tut es a cr i m e of vi ol ence not‘ y es ’ or

‘ no, ’ but‘ s om et i m es . ’ ” Uni t ed Stat es v. G r een , 414 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1035 ( N . D . O kl a. 2006) ( r efe r ence d i n the court ’ s rul i ng i n the i ns t antcas e) . Y et undert he s t ructur e of the B ai l R eform A ctand es t abl i s hed ca s e l aw , “ei ther- 10-

fel on- i n- pos s es s i on i s a cr i m e of vi ol ence ori ti s not . ” N i col e J . B r edefel d, N ot e, The B ai lR ef

or m A ctof

1984 and Fel ons w ho P os s es s Weapons : D is cr epancy A m o n gth e Fe d e ra l C o u rts , 26 Set on H al l L egi s . J . 215, 233 ( 2001) ( quot at i on o m itte d ). W e hol d t hata § 922( g) ( 1) offe ns e i s nota cr i m e of vi ol ence forpurpos es of t he A ctbeca us e the natur e of the offens e does noti nvol ve a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of p h y sic a l fo rc e u se d a g a in st th e p e rso n o r p ro p e rtyo f a n o th e r. A s a p p lied to M r . I ngl e, t hi s m eans t hathe i s el i gi bl e forbai l pendi ng s ent enci ng i f a j udi ci al o ffice r c o n c lu d e s th e re is c lea r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t h e “ is n o t li k e lyto fl ee orpos e a da ngert o t he s afe t yof anyotherper s on orthe comm uni ty . ” 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 1 4 3 (a)(1). I V . C oncl usi on H av ing rejected the p rem ise o f th e d istri ct co u rt ’s ord er, th is co u rt R E V E R SE S t he dec i s i on of the di s tr i ctcourtand R E M A N D S t he mat t ert o the di s t r i ctcourtforfur t herpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on.