Opinion ID: 4363970
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Force/elements clause

Text: The government argues for the first time on appeal that second-degree murder qualifies as a crime of violence under the force/elements clause. We need not determine whether it has waived or forfeited this claim, because it is apparent that the argument fails on the merits. The generic “crime of violence” includes the following elements: (i) the crime has “as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against [a] person,” (ii) the “physical force” must be “violent” or otherwise “capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person,” and (iii) the “use of force must be intentional, not just reckless or negligent.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1); United States v. Dixon, 805 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015) (defining “violent felony” under ACCA’s force/elements clause); United States v. Ladwig, 432 F.3d 1001, 1005 n.9 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting that requirements for the ACCA’s “violent felony” and the Guidelines’ “crime of violence” are “identical”). On the other hand, Washington law imposes liability for negligent or even accidental felony murder. See, e.g., State v. Leech, 790 P.2d 160, 164 (Wash. 1990) (“The purpose of the felony murder rule is to deter felons from killing negligently or accidentally by holding them strictly responsible for killings they commit.”). The 18 UNITED STATES V. VEDEROFF statute is therefore overbroad as compared to a generic crime of violence. As noted above, we cannot apply the modified categorical approach because this statute is indivisible. Second-degree murder under Washington law is not a crime of violence under the force/elements clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). 10 C. The sentencing errors were not harmless. Even when the district court indicates it would impose the same sentence regardless of the proper Guidelines range, we have held that “[a] mistake in calculating the recommended Guidelines sentencing range is a significant procedural error that requires us to remand for resentencing.” Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d at 1030. “[T]he district court must correctly calculate the recommended Guidelines sentence and use that recommendation as the ‘starting point and the initial benchmark.’ . . . [T]he recommended Guidelines range must ‘be kept in mind throughout the process.’” Id. (citations omitted). We require that the “district court [ ] start with the recommended Guidelines sentence, adjust upward or downward from that point, and justify the extent of the departure from the Guidelines sentence.” Id. (citation omitted). “A district court’s mere statement that it would impose the same aboveGuidelines sentence no matter what the correct calculation cannot, without more, insulate the sentence from remand, 10 Because we conclude that Vederoff’s convictions for seconddegree murder and second-degree assault do not constitute crimes of violence, we need not determine whether accomplice liability under Washington law is categorically broader than federal aiding and abetting liability, under the reasoning in United States v. Valdivia-Flores, 876 F.3d 1201, 1207-09 (9th Cir. 2017), such that no Washington conviction qualifies as a crime of violence. UNITED STATES V. VEDEROFF 19 because the court’s analysis did not flow from an initial determination of the correct Guidelines range.” Id. at 1031. Here, it appears that the district court started with the presumption that a 60-month sentence was the correct one, and it attempted to justify it as either a downward departure from the Guidelines calculation he accepted at sentencing or an upward departure from the Guidelines calculation advocated by defense counsel. Having now determined that the proper Guideline range would be 30 to 37 months, we cannot say that the district court’s incorrect calculation of the proper Guideline range was harmless. The explanation given by the district court does not explain why the court imposed a sentence nearly double the Guideline range. Nor does it demonstrate that the district court would impose the same sentence if the correct Guidelines range were “kept in mind throughout the process.” Id. at 1030 (citation omitted). Moreover, the explanation provided by the district court does not account for the amount or direction of the departure; the mitigating factors discussed by the district court could also have warranted a downward variance from the proper Guideline range. This case must therefore be remanded for resentencing with the correct Guidelines range in mind. United States v. Brown, 879 F.3d 1043, 1051 (9th Cir. 2018) (“The use of an incorrect starting point and the failure to keep the proper Sentencing Guidelines range in mind as the sentencing decision was made constituted ‘a significant procedural error,’ and the case must be remanded for resentencing.” (quoting Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d at 1030)). SENTENCE VACATED, REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.