N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JESSE C AREY B ARKER ,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-30217

D.C . No. 2:14-c r-00173-EJL-1 ORDER and M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ida

ho Wm . Fre m

m ing Nie lse n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 3, 2016 W i thdra wn from Subm ission Oc t obe r 13, 2016 R e subm itte d

April 24, 2017 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : W . FLETC HER , GOULD, a nd N.R
. SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s . De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt Je s se C are y

B arke r ple a de d guilty

on M arc h 31, 2015, to one c o unt of unla

wful posse ssion of fire a

rm s a nd a m m unition pursua

nt to 18 U.S.C . §§ 922(g)(1) a

nd 924(a)(2). The initia l Pre s e nte nc e Inve stiga tion R e port for 

# F IL ED
APR 24 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.the 2 015 c onvic t ion re c om m e nde d a B a se Offe nse Le v e l of 20. Thegove rnm e nt obje c te d, a

rguing tha

t the “ B a se Offe nse Le ve l should be a le ve l 24 be c a

use the de fe nda nt ha s c onvic t ions for both a c rim e of viole nc e and a c ontrolle d substa

nc e offe nse .” B arke r ha d

be e n pre viously

c o nvic te d of two other fe lonie s. First, in 2004, he wa s c onvic te d in Iowa Distric t C ourt for c onspira c y to m anufa c ture a
c ontrolle d substa

nc e . Se c ond, in 2010, he

wa s c onvic te d in W

y om ing of posse s sion of a

M o lotov c oc kta il de struc tive de vic e . B arke r c o nte nde d, “ Standing
a lone , [U.S.S.G.] § 4B 1.2(a ) doe s not e sta blish tha t B arke r’ s c onvic tion c onstitute s
a c rim e of viole nc e . . . . This [c onvic tion] doe s not involve or re q uire the a c tua l

‘ u se ’ of e xplosive s .” The distric t c o urt found tha t his prior c o nvic tion for posse s sion of a

M o lotov c oc kta il qua lifie d a s a “ c rim e of viole nc e ” unde r § 4B 1.2
and se t the B a se Offe nse Le ve l at 24. B arke r tim e ly a p pe a ls, a nd we a ffirm
. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 18 U.S.C . §§ 1291 a nd 3742(a). The distric t c o urt’ s inte rpre tation of theSe nte n c ing Guide line s is re v ie we d de novo. Se eUnite d State

s v . N ie l se n , 371 F.3d 574, 582 (9th C ir. 2004); Unite d State s v . Phillips , 367 F.3d 846, 855 (9th C ir. 2004). Se nte n c ing de c isions a re re vie we d for
a buse o f disc re tion. Se eGall v

. Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007); Unite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th C i r. 2008) (e n ba nc ). The se nte nc e s a

re
re vie we d for re a sona

b le ne ss, a nd only a proc e dura lly e rrone ous or substa ntive ly

2unre a s ona

ble se nte nc e is se t a side
. Se eGall , 552 U.S. a t 46; C arty , 520 F.3d a

t 993. If a de fe nda nt is c onvic te d of unla

w ful re c e ipt, posse ssion, or tra nsporta tion of fire arm s, the Guide line s instruc t the distric t c ourt to se t a ba se line le v e l of 24 if

“ the de fe nda

nt c om m itte d a ny pa rt of the insta

nt offe nse subse que nt to sustaining
at le a st two fe lony

c onvic tions.”U.S. S E N T E N C I N G G U I D E LI

N E S M A N U A L § 2K2.1(a )(2) (U.S. S E N T E N C I N G C O M M ’ N 2014). The two fe l ony c onvic tions m

ust be “ e ithe r c rim e [s] of viole nc e or c ontrolle d substa nc e offe nse [s] .” Id. B arke r’ s 2004 c onvic tion undoubte dly qua lifie s a s a

c o ntrolle d substa

n c e offe n se , a

nd he doe s not dispute

tha t finding here . Howe v e r, he c la im s tha t posse ssion of a M olotov c oc kta il doe s not qua l ify a s a c rim e of viole nc e . W e disa gre e . Se c tion 4B 1.2, in re le va

nt pa rt, de fine s c rim e of viole nc e : (a ) The te rm

‘ c rim e of viole nc e ’ m e ans a ny offe nse unde r fe d e ra l or sta te la w, punisha

ble by im prisonm e nt for a

te rm e xc e e d ing one y e ar, that . . . . (2) is burgla

ry of a dwe lling, a

rson, or e xtortion, involve s use of e xplosive s, or othe rwise involve s c onduc t tha t pre s e nts a

se rious pote ntia l risk of phy sic a l injury to a nothe r. Applic at ion Note1 of the C om m e nta ry to § 4B 1.2 the n provide s ¶2 Othe r offe nse s a

re inc lude d a s “ c rim e s of viole n c e ” if. . . (B ) the c onduc t se t forth (i.e ., e xpre ssly c ha rge d) in the c ount of w hic h the de fe ndant w as c onvic te d involve d use of e xplosive s (inc luding any e xplosivem ate r ial or de str uc tive de v ic e ) or, by its na ture , pre se nte d a se rious pote ntia l risk of phy sic a l injury to a nothe r.
3¶3 “ C rim e of viole nc e ” doe s not inc lude the offe nse of unla wful posse ssion of a

fire arm by a fe lon, unle ss the posse s sion wa s of a fire arm d e sc ribe d in 26 U.S.C . § 5845(a). (Em pha s is a dde d). The re is no dispute a s to whe the r B arke r use d his M olotov
c oc kta il. He did not. The

que s tion is whe the r a

M olotov c oc kta i l qua lifie s a s a fire arm pursua nt to § 5845(a

), whic h c rim ina liz e s posse ssion of suc h fire arm s. W e hold tha

t a M o lotov c oc kta il fits within the fire arm c ate gory of “ a de struc tive de vic e .” 26 U.S.C . § 5845(a)(8). “ The te rm ‘ de struc tive de vic e ’ m e ans (1) any e xplosive , inc e n dia

ry , or poison ga s (A) bom b, (B ) gre na d e . . . or (F) sim ila r de vic e .” Id. § 5845(f). A M olotov c oc kta il is a n inc e ndia

ry de vic e that is quite sim ila

r to a gre na d e . The re fore , posse ssion c onstitute s a c rim e of viole nc e . B arke r argue s tha

t our de c isions in Unite d State s v . C anon , 993 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th C ir. 1993), a

nd U nite d State

s v . Fish , 368 F.3d 1200 (9th C ir. 2004), he ld tha t m e re posse ssion c o uld not qual ify a s a c rim e of viole nc e . This is – or a t le a st wa s – true . Howe v e r, the Se nte nc i ng C om m ission a m e nde d the Guide l ine s in 2004 to m ake posse s sion of § 5845(a ) fire arm s unla

wful, thus overruling C

a non
and Fish . U.S. S E N T E N C I N G G U I D E LI

N E S M A N U A L a

pp. C , am e nd. 674 (U.S. S E N T E N C I

N G C O M M ’ N 2009) (“ [T] his a m e ndm e nt e xpa

nds thede finition of ‘ c rim e of viole nc e ’ in Applic ation Note1 . . . to inc lude unla w ful posse ssion of a

ny fire arm de sc ribe d in 26 U.S.C . § 5845(a). The am e ndm e nt a lso e xc e pts posse ssion

4of those fire arm s . . . from the rule tha

t e xc lude s fe lon in posse ssion offe nse s from the d e finition of ‘ c rim e of viole nc e .’ ” ). Fina lly , we note tha

t the Supre m e C o urt he ld in Be c k le s v . Unite d State

s , 137 S. C t. 886, 895 (2017), tha t “ the a dvisory

Se nte nc ing Guide line s are not subje c t to
a va g ue ne ss c ha l le nge unde r the Due Proc e ss C la use and tha

t § 4B 1.2(a )’ s re sidua l
c la use is not void for va

g ue n e ss.” W e the re fore re je c t a ny c ha lle nge s ba se d on
va gue ne ss. For the fore going re a sons, these nte nc e of the distric t c ourt is AFFIRM E D . This c a se is re subm itte d c onc urre ntly with the filing of this disposition.

5