# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 38 96

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

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.

W arn el l Re id

,

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 Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

16 , 20 14
Fil ed : Oct ob er 2 0, 2 01 4

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

W arn el l Rei d was co nv ic te d of un la wfu l possess io n of a fir earm as a pr ev io us ly

co nv ic te d fel on , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 )

. Th e s t a tu to ry m ax im um

pu ni sh m en t fo r th at vi ol at io n, un le ss en ha nc ed

, is te n y ears ’ im pr is on m en t. 18 U.S.C.
§ 92 4( a)(2 ). Bas ed on Rei d’s cri m in al hi st or y , ho wev er, th e di st ric t co ur t ap pl ie d th e

st at ut or y pe na lt y ran ge of fif te en y ears to li fe im

pr is on m en t un de r th e Arm ed Care erCri m in al Act, 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e), an d se nt en ced Rei d to a te rm of 18 8 m on th s’

im pr is on m en t, wi th two y ears of s up erv is ed rel eas e.

Rei d ap pe al s th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n to su pp re s s e v i d e n c e se iz ed du rin g a

se arch of hi s res id en ce an d th e ap pl ic at io n of th e se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t. W e

co nc lu de th at th e se arch co m pl ie d wit h th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t, bu t th at Rei d’s pr io r

co nv ic ti on fo r at te m

pt ed bu rg la ry un de r Mi ss o u r i l a w was no t a “ vi ol en t fel on y ”

un de r § 92 4( e). W e th eref or e affi rm th e co nv ic ti on , va cat e th e se nt en ce, an d rem an d

fo r res en te nc in g.

I.

In 20 11

, Rei d was li vi ng wit h hi s gi rlf rie nd

, Earn es ti ne Grah am

. Grah am was

se rv i n g a te rm of fed eral su pe rv is ed rel eas e, an d sh e ha d vi ol at ed th e co nd it io ns of

he r rel eas e. Sev eral la w en fo rcem en t o f f i cers , in cl ud in g de pu ty Uni te d St at es

m ars ha ls an d St . Lo ui s po li ce de te ct iv es , we nt to Grah am ’s ho m e aro un d 6: 30 a.m

.

o n O c t o be r 10 , 2 01 1, to ex ecu te an arre st warra nt fo r Grah am

. The fro nt do or w a s

crac ke d op en , a nd a d ep ut y pu sh ed it op en . He sa w Gr ah am ab ou t ei gh t to te n feet

fro m th e do or way

. S h e w a s d r e s se d in he r pa jam as

. The de pu ty as ke d Grah am to

ap pr oa ch th e do or way an d to ld he r to tu rn aro un d. He th en ha nd cu ffed Grah am an d

pu ll ed he r ou ts id e th e d oo r.

Afte r arre st in g Grah am , th e of fic ers as ke d he r if an y on e e l s e was in si de th e
ho m e, an d sh e to ld th em on ly he r m in or ch il dr en were in si de

. Offi ce r s t he n

co nd uc te d what th ey de sc rib ed as a “ se cu rit y swe ep ” of th e en ti re res id en ce. W he n

th e swe ep was co m

pl et ed

, of fic ers al lo wed Grah a m t o reen te r th e ho m e to dr es s.

W hi le acco m

pa nyin g Grah am to he r be dr oo m , an of fic er di sc ov ered in pl ai n vi ew an

SKS as sa ul t ri fle

.

-2

-Grah am to ld th e of fic ers th e fir earm be lo ng ed to he r bo y fri en d, Rei d, an d th at

th ere were no ot he r fir earm s in th e ho m e. Rei d arri ve d sh or tl y th erea fte r an d pa rk ed

hi s ve hi cl e ne ar th e res id en ce. Afte r id en ti fy in g Rei d as Grah am ’s bo y fri en d, of fic ers
de ta in ed Rei d o ut si de th e res id en ce.

Afte r ad vi si ng Grah am of he r rig ht s un de r Mir an da v. Ari zo na , 38 4 U.S. 43 6
(1 96 6)

, th e of

fic ers as ke d Grah am if sh e wou ld co ns en t to a se arch of th e ho m e. Sh e

ag reed an d si gn ed a co ns en t fo rm

. Dur in g a se arch of th e ho m e, of fic ers di sc ov ered

a sh ot gu n on a win do wsi ll in Grah am ’s be dr oo m , a d i s a s s e m bl ed pi st ol

, an d

am m un it io n.

A g ran d jury ch arg ed Rei d wit h un la wfu l po ss es si on of a fir earm a s a

pr ev io us ly co nv ic te d fel on

. He m ov ed to su pp res s ev id en ce fo un d in th e ho m e, an d

th e d i s t r i ct co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n. Rei d pr oc eed ed to tri al

, an d a jury fo un d hi m

gu il ty. At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at Rei d ha d su st ai ne d th ree pr io r

c o n v i c t i o n s fo r vi ol en t fel on ie s, an d se nt en ced hi m to a te rm of 18 8 m on th s ’

im pr is on m en t.

II.

Rei d arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by no t su pp res si ng th e ev id en ce se iz ed

fro m th e res id en ce. He co nt en ds th at th e of fic ers im pe rm is si bl y e n te red th e ho us e
whe n th ey fo un d th e SKS as sa ul t rif le in Grah am ’s be dr oo m , an d th at th e di sc ov ery

of ot he r ev id en ce was a di rect res ul t o f fi nd in g t he fir st fir earm

.

The of fic ers di d no t ha ve a se arch wa r r a n t f or th e ho us e, so th e qu es ti on is

whe th er th ey ha d a ba si s to en te r wit ho ut a w a r r a n t

. The arre st of a pe rs on ou ts id e

a ho m e do es no t by it se lf jus ti fy a warra nt le ss se arch of th e res id en ce. Uni te d St at es

v. DeBus e , 2 89 F.3 d 10 72 , 1 07 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ). Here, ho wev er, Grah am was cl ad

on ly in pa jam as , an d th e di st ric t co u r t f o u n d t ha t “ th e de pu ti es al lo wed Grah am to

-3

-reen te r 71 2 Thru sh to ch an ge he r cl ot he s.” W he n an arre st ee ch oo se s to reen te r he r

ho m e fo r he r own co nv en ie nc e, it is reas on ab le fo r of fic ers to acco m

pa ny he r an d to

m on it or he r m ov em en ts

. Ill in oi s v. McArt hu r , 53 1 U.S. 32 6, 33 5 (2 00 1) ; W as hi ng to n

v. Ch ri sma n , 45 5 U.S. 1

, 6- 7 (1 98 2) ; DeBus e , 28 9 F.3 d at 10 74 -7 5. Offi cers

pe rm is si bl y acco m

pa ni ed Grah am to he r be dr oo m whe re sh e ch an ge d fro m pa jam as

in to cl o t h e s , a n d a de pu ty ob se rv ed th e as sa ul t rif le in pl ai n vi ew in th e be dr oo m

. The sei zu re o f th e fi rear m was t hu s p erm is si bl e u nd er t he Fo ur th Am en dm en t.

Rei d arg ue s th at acco m

pa ni m en t of Grah am di d no t jus ti fy th e warra nt le ss

en try be cau se Grah am di d no t requ es t to reen te r he r ho m e. It is tru e th at th ere is no

te st im on y di rect ly quo ti ng Grah am as m ak in g s uc h a req ue st . But th e d is tri ct co ur t

fo un d th at th e de pu ti es “ al lo wed ” G r a ha m to reen te r, an d th is fin di ng is be st

un de rs to od in or di na ry us ag e as a gr an t of pe rm is si on

. A gr an t of pe rm is si on im pl ie s

a req ue st

. The di st ric t co ur t li ke ly wou ld ha ve u s e d di ffer en t la ng ua ge if th e co ur t

ha d fo un d t ha t t he off

ic ers ord ered Grah am

ba ck in to th e h ou se

.

The reco rd su pp or ts th e in fere nc e th at Grah am wan te d to ge t dr es se d an d th at

th e o f f i cers pe rm it te d he r to reen te r th e ho m e fo r th at pu rp os e. The le ad de pu ty

m ars ha l te st ifi ed th at aft er arre st in g Grah am , he was go in g “ to al lo w h e r to ge t

cl ot he s,” an d th at sh e was “ al lo wed ” to go in to he r be dr oo m an d ch an ge cl ot he s. He

ex pl ai ne d th at th is was on e of th e “ co ur te si es ” th at he ex te nd ed to Grah am

. Hr’g Tr.

7- 8, 19

. W e th eref

or e co nc lu de th at ou r de ci si on in DeBus e is co nt ro ll in g an d de em

it un ne ces sa ry to ex pl or e whe n po li ce m ay br in g an a r r e s t e e in to a ho m e to ch an ge
cl ot he s or to dr es s wit ho ut a req ue st by th e arre st ee. Cf

. Uni te d St at es v. Gwin n , 21 9

F.3 d 32 6, 33 3 (4t h Cir. 20 00 ); Uni te d St at es v. But le r , 98 0 F.2d 61 9, 6 21 (1 0t h Cir.

19 92 ); Uni te d S ta te s v. Di St ef an o , 55 5 F .2d 10 94 , 11 01 (2d Cir . 19 77 ).

Onc e th e of

fic ers lo cat ed th e as sa ul t ri fle in pl ai n v ie w, th ey se cu red co ns en t

fro m Grah am to s e a r c h t h e ho us e. Grah am ’s co ns en t was su ffi ci en t to jus ti fy a

warra nt le ss se arch

, an d th e res t of th e ev id en ce se iz ed pu rs ua nt to th e co ns en t se arch

-4

-was pr op erl y ad m it te d a ga in st Rei d. Se e Fer na nd ez v. Ca li fo rn ia , 1 34 S. Ct . 1 12 6,

11 33 -3 4 (2 01 4)

. Bec au se we co nc lu de th at th e of fic ers pe rm is si bl y fo un d an d se iz ed

th e di sp ut ed ev id en ce whi le acco m pa nyin g Grah am to ch an ge he r cl ot he s or pu rs ua nt

t o Grah am ’s la te r co ns en t, we ne ed no t ad dr es s whe th er th e pr es en ce of m in o r
ch il dr en jus ti fie d th e “ pr ot ect iv e swe ep ” th at of fic ers co nd uc te d wit ho ut a warra nt or

co ns en t.

III.

Rei d al so ch al le ng es th e se nt en ce im po se d ba se d on th e Arm ed Care er
Cri m in al Act. Und e r t h e A c t

, a de fen da nt co nv ic te d of un la wfu l po ss es si on of a

fir earm or am m

un it io n un de r 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) is su bjec t to a m an da to ry m in im um

se nt en ce of fif

te en y ears ’ im

pr is on m en t, a n d a m ax im um pu ni sh m en t of li fe, if th e
de fen da nt ha s th ree pr ev io us co nv ic ti on s fo r a vi ol en t fel on y or se rio us dr ug of fen se ,

or bo th

. 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e). Oth erwi s e , t h e maxi m um pu ni sh m en t is te n y ears ’

im pr is on m en t. Id

. § 92 4( a)(2 ). The Act de fin es “ vi ol en t fel on y ” to i n cl ud e “ an y
cri m e pu ni sh ab le by im

pr is on m en t fo r a te rm ex ceed in g on e y ear” th at is “ bu rg la ry ,

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 l v es co nd uc t th at

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.” Id

. § 92 4( e)(2 )(B)

. It is un di sp ut ed th at R e i d h a d su st ai ne d at le as t two pr io r vi ol en t fel on ie s, bu t he

ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at hi s p rio r co nv ic ti on fo r at te m pt ed

bu rg la ry in Mi ss ou ri wa s a t hi rd vi ol en t fe lo ny.

In Ja mes v. Uni te d St at es , 55 0 U.S. 19 2 (2 00 7)

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ad dr es se d

whe th er a co nv ic ti on fo r at te m pt ed bu rg la ry qu al ifi ed as a “ vi ol en t f e lo ny” un de r § 92 4( e). Thi s co ur t pr ev io us ly ha d he ld in Uni te d St at es v. McKi nn ey , 32 8 F.3 d 99 3,

99 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 3 )

, t ha t at te m pt ed bu rg la ry in Mi ss ou ri was a vi ol en t fel on y , bu t

“ Ja mes cl ari fi e d t h e a p p ro ach th at th e fed eral co ur ts are to ta ke in as cert ai ni ng
whe th er an of

fen se qu al ifi es a s a v i ol en t fel on y un de r th e ACCA’s res id ua l

pr ov is io n.” Uni te d St at es v. S p u d i c h

, 51 0 F.3 d 83 4, 83 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Ja mes

-5

-id en ti fie d th e pr op er inq ui ry as “ whe th er t he co nd uc t en co m pa ss ed by the ele m en ts

of th e of fen se , in th e or di na ry cas e, pr es en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ris k of in jury to

an ot he r.” Id

.

Co ns id eri ng th e Fl or id a st at ut e on at te m pt ed bu rg la ry , Ja mes as ke d “ whe th er

th e ris k po se d by at te m

pt ed bu rg la ry is co m

pa rab le to th at po se d by it s cl os es t an al og

am on g th e en um erat ed of fen se s— he re, co m

pl e te d bu rg la ry .” 55 0 U.S. at 20 3.

Fl or id a la w, as in te rp ret ed by th e St at e’s hi gh e st co ur t, “ req ui re[d ] an ov ert act

di rect ed to ward th e en try of a st ru ct ur e,” id

. at 20 6, an d Ja mes he ld th at a tt em pt ed

bu rg la ry in Fl or id a was su ffi ci en tl y si m il ar to bu rg la ry to qu al ify as a vi ol en t fel on y

. The Co ur t fo un d it un ne ces sa ry to ad dr es s whe th er “ m or e at te nu at ed co nd uc t” —s uc h

as th e “ cas in g” of

a bu il di ng or n ei gh bo rh oo d— wou ld su ffi ce, b ut su gg es te d th at a

st at ut e req ui rin g on ly “ pr ep arat or y co nd uc t” m ig ht well no t qu al ify. Id

. at 20 5 n.4 &

20 6.

McKi nn ey di d no t ha ve th e be ne fit of th e an al y ti cal fram ewo rk es ta bl is he d in

Ja mes , an d it is ap pr op ria te to co ns id er a n e w i n li gh t of th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s

gu id an ce whe th er at te m

pt ed bu rg la ry in Mi ss ou ri is a vi ol en t fel on y

. Se e Pat te rs on

v. Ten et Hea lt hc ar e, In c. , 11 3 F.3d 83 2, 83 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ). McKi nn ey fo cu se d on

th e fact th at at te m

pt ed b u r g la ry in Mi ss ou ri req ui res a “ su bs ta nt ia l st ep ” to ward

bu rg la ry , 32 8 F .3d at 9 95

, bu t d id no t co ns id er t he ran ge of c on du ct co ve red by the

Mi ss ou ri s ta tu te

.

The Mi ss ou ri st at ut e, it tu rn s o u t

, is no t li ke th e Fl or id a st at ut e at is su e in

Ja mes

. A pe rs on co m

m it s at te m

pt ed bu rg la ry in Mi ss ou ri if he “ do es an y act whi ch

is a su bs ta nt ia l st ep to ward s th e co m m is si on of th e of

fen se .” Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 56 4.0 11 .1. Co m

m en ta ry to th e Mi ss ou ri att em pt st at ut e sa y s th at “ reco nn oi te rin g

th e pl ace co nt em

pl at ed fo r th e co m

m is si on of th e of

fen se ” or “ po ss es si on of m at eri al s

to be em pl oyed in th e co m

m is si on of th e of

fen se , whi ch are sp eci al ly de si gn ed fo r

su ch un la wfu l us e” can be a su bs t a n t i a l s te p: The se act s “ sh ou ld no t be he ld

-6

-in su ffi ci en t as a m at te r of la w.” Co m m en t to Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 56 4.0 11

. Se e St at e v.
Mol as ky

, 76 5 S.W .2d 59 7, 60 0- 01 (Mo

. 19 89 ); O’Del l v. Armo nt ro ut

, 87 8 F.2 d 10 76

, 10 79 (8t h C ir. 1 98 9)

.

The go ve rn m en t ha s fu rn is he d no em pi ric al da ta ab ou t “ or di na ry ” co nv ic ti on s

in Mi ss ou ri fo r at te m

pt ed bu rg la ry , cf

. Ch amb er

s v. Uni te d St at es , 55 5 U.S. 12 2, 12 9
(2 00 9)

, an d rep or te d ap pe al s are un li ke ly to en co m pa ss th e ni ne ty-fo u r p e r cen t of

st at e co nv ic ti on s th at are th e res ul t of gu il ty p le as , se e Mis so ur i v. Fr y e , 1 3 2 S. Ct

. 13 99

, 14 07 (2 01 2)

, so ou r de ci si on res ts on th e st at u t e a n d c om m en ta ry

. In

de te rm in in g wha t is th e “ or di na ry cas e” fo r pu rp o s e s o f § 92 4( e), th e go ve rn m en t

ne ed no t sh ow th at “ ev ery co nc ei va bl e fact ua l of fen se ” pr es en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l

ris k o f in jury. Ja mes , 55 0 U.S. at 20 8. “ [U]nus ua l case s” th at can be hypo th es iz ed

are no t su ffi ci en t to ex cl ud e “ a pr ot ot y pi cal ly vi ol en t cri m e” fro m co ve rag e. Id

. Bu t

in li gh t of th e Mi ss ou ri st at ut e an d co m m en ta ry , a n d i n th e ab se nc e of a Mi ss ou ri

co ur t de ci si on th at na rro ws th e sc op e of th e st at ut e as in Fl or id a, cf

. Uni te d St at es v. Lyn ch

, 51 8 F.3 d 16 4, 17 0 ( 2 d C i r

. 20 08 ), we can no t di sm is s as hypo th et ic al or

ex tra or di na ry th e po te nt ia l th at a pe rs on co ul d be co nv ic te d of at te m pt ed bu rg la ry in

Mi sso ur i fo r ca sin g a bu il di ng or po ss es si ng sp eci al ly de si gn ed bu rg la ry to ol s wit ho ut

co m m it ti ng “ an ov ert act di rect ed to ward th e en try of a s tru ct ur e.” Id . at 2 06

.

Att em pt ed bu rg la ry

in Mi ss ou ri, t he refo re, i s co m pa rab le to th e at te m

pt la ws

fro m Utah

, Okl ah om a, Tex as , an d W as hi ng to n th at Ja mes sa id “ co ul d be sa ti sf ie d by

pr ep arat or y co nd uc t th at do es no t po se th e sa m e ri s k of vi ol en t co nf ro nt at io n an d
ph y si cal ha rm po se d by an at te m pt to en te r a st ru ct ur e il l e g a l l y.” Id

. at 20 5 & n.4

. Si st er ci rcu it s ha v e h e l d t h at vi ol at io ns of th es e st at e st at ut es do no t qu al ify as

pr ed ic at e fel on ie s un de r § 92 4( e). Id

. (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. W eekl ey , 24 F.3 d 11 25

, 11 27 (9 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (Wash in gt on ); Uni te d St at es v. Perme nt er , 9 69 F.2 d 91 1, 91 3
(1 0t h Ci r. 19 92 ) (Ok la h o ma) ; U ni te d St at es v. St ra hl , 9 58 F.2 d 98 0, 98 6 (1 0t h Ci r.

19 92 ) (Uta h) ; Uni t e d St at es v. Mar ti ne z , 95 4 F.2 d 10 50

, 10 54 (5 th Ci r. 19 92 )
(Tex as )). Att em

pt ed bu rg la ry in M i s s o ur i is al so co m pa rab le to at te m

pt ed se co nd

-

-7

-d eg ree bu rg la ry in Ariz on a, whi ch is no t a “ vi ol en t fel on y ” acco rd in g to th e Ten t h

Cir cu it, be ca

use the sta tut e pr oh ib it s “ at te nu at ed co nd uc t” su ch as “ reco nn oi te rin g th e pl ace co nt em

pl at ed fo r th e co m

m is si on of th e cri m e.” Uni te d St at es v. Mar ti ne z , 60 2

F.3 d 11 66 , 1 17 2- 73 ( 1 0 t h C i r. 20 10 ). The Mi ss ou ri st at ut e is di st in gu is ha bl e fro m

th e Mi nn es ot a st at ut e di sc us se d in Uni te d St at es v

. S m i t h

, 6 45 F.3 d 99 8 (8 th Ci r.

20 11 ), whi ch req ui res “ m or e th an pr ep arat io n” to jus ti fy a co nv ic ti on fo r at te m

pt ed

bu rg la ry , an d ap pe ars to co ve r on ly co nd u c t t h a t i n vo lv es “ a le ve l of ris k th at is

in di st in gu is ha bl e fro m th e ‘ove rt act di rect ed to ward en te rin g’ de sc rib ed in Ja mes .”

Id

. at 1 00 4.

The Mi ss ou ri st at ut e un de r w h i c h R ei d was co nv ic te d pr oh ib it s pr ep arat or y

co nd uc t th at pr es en ts a le ss er ris k of vi ol en t co nf ro nt at io n th an do es an act di rect ed

to ward en try of a st ru ct ur e. Co ns is te nt w i t h o t h e r ci rcu it s th at ha ve co ns id ered

si m il ar s ta tu te s, we can no t co nc lu de th at th e co nd uc t en co m pa ss ed by the ele m en ts

of th e Mi ss ou ri of

fen se of at te m

pt ed bu rg la ry , in th e or di na ry cas e, pr es en ts a se rio us

po te nt ia l ris k of in

jury to an ot he r. The refo re, Rei d’s co nv ic ti on fo r at te m pt ed se co nd

de gr ee b ur gl ary in Mi ss ou ri d oe s n ot co ns ti tu te a “ vi ol en t fe lo ny” un de r § 9 24 (e).

* * *

Fo r th es e reas on s, the jud gm en t of con vi ct io n is affi rm ed , bu t t he sen te nc e is

va cat ed

, an d th e cas e is rem an de d fo r res en te nc in g co ns is te nt wit h th is op in io n. Our

de ci si on co nc ern in g § 92 4( e) do e s n o t ad dr es s th e se pa rat e qu es ti on whe th er Rei d

qu al ifi es as a “ c a r e e r of fen de r” un de r § 4B 1.1 of th e Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g
Gui de li ne s, gi ve n th at th e de fin it io n of “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” in USSG § 4B 1.2 an d it s

co m m en ta ry sp eci fic al ly in cl ud es at te m pt in g to co m

m it a cri m e of vi ol en ce. Se e

Uni te d S ta te s v. Ro ss , 61 3 F .3d 80 5, 8 09 -1 0 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ).

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

-8

-