Opinion ID: 203450
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prior Maine Shoplifting Conviction

Text: Where a defendant is convicted of an offense involving five or more grams of crack cocaine, she must be given a mandatory minimum sentence of five years, even if her GSR is lower. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B); see also United States v. Rodríguez, 938 F.2d 319, 320 (1st Cir. 1991). Even where the mandatory minimum applies, however, a sentencing court can apply a lower sentence under the safety-valve provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) if the defendant meets five enumerated criteria. Only one of those criteria is at issue here: whether the district court properly found McKenzie's CHC to be II. If so, she is ineligible for safety-valve relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1). Section 4A1.2(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines governs the types of prior convictions that may be considered for purposes of calculating a defendant's criminal history score. All felony offenses are counted. Misdemeanors are counted as well, with an important exception crucial to McKenzie's appeal: if the prior conviction is for one of a listed number of misdemeanor offenses, or an offense similar to a listed offense, it is not counted as long as the sentence served was not a term of probation of at least one year, or a term of imprisonment of at least thirty days. Id. § 4A1.2(c)(1). At sentencing, the district court determined that the PSR properly factored McKenzie's June 2006 shoplifting into her CHC score. The court agreed with the Government's argument that Spaulding controlled the issue. McKenzie now urges us to reverse Spaulding and remand her case to the district court, substituting for the similar to standard a common sense approach. As the basis for her request, McKenzie points to amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines promulgated by the United States Sentencing Commission (Commission), made effective on November 1, 2007. Particularly, McKenzie relies on the addition of Application Note 12(A) to the Guidelines commentary, which in pertinent part reads: In determining whether an unlisted offense is similar to an offense listed in [§ 4A1.2](c)(1) . . ., the court should use a common sense approach that includes consideration of relevant factors such as (i) a comparison of punishments imposed for the listed and unlisted offenses; (ii) the perceived seriousness of the offense as indicated by the level of punishment; (iii) the elements of the offense; (iv) the level of culpability involved; and (v) the degree to which the commission of the offense indicates a likelihood of recurring criminal conduct. Id. § 4A1.2 n. 12(A). We reject McKenzie's call to depart from Spaulding. Our cases are clear that three-judge panels are bound by prior panel decisions absent extraordinary circumstances. See United States v. Duval, 496 F.3d 64, 85 (1st Cir.2007) (citing United States v. Allen, 469 F.3d 11, 17 (1st Cir. 2006)); United States v. Allen, 469 F.3d 11, 17 (1st Cir.2006) ([W]e remain bound to prior panel decisions `in the absence of supervening authority sufficient to warrant disregard of established precedent.' (quoting United States v. Wogan, 938 F.2d 1446, 1449 (1st Cir.1991))). The relevant facts in Spaulding are markedly similar to those in this case. There, we rejected the defendant's claim that his prior conviction for shoplifting approximately $21 worth of goods should be excluded from his criminal history score because it was similar to an insufficient funds check conviction, an offense listed in § 4A1.2(c)(1), and therefore exempt from being counted in a defendant's CHC. Spaulding, 339 F.3d at 22. Doing so, we explained: [S]hoplifting poses a markedly greater risk to the public. Passing a bad check poses little risk of physical confrontation, because the perpetrator is not present when the victim realizes that he has been victimized. Shoplifting, on the other hand, creates the very real risk of physical confrontation between the perpetrator and the victim. A store employee or customer may confront the perpetrator in an attempt to thwart the crime. The risk of confrontation precludes a conclusion that shoplifting is similar to passing a bad check. Id. [1] McKenzie does not attempt to persuade us that the circumstances surrounding her case can be significantly distinguished from those we addressed in Spaulding. Instead, she asks us to remand her case for consideration of the criminal history applicability of her prior shoplifting conviction under the recently established common sense standard. McKenzie, however, does not present us with any meaningful basis to comply with her request. The amendments to the Guidelines on which McKenzie anchors her claim were adopted after her sentencing in November 2007. We have no reason to believe that the Commission intended the amendments to apply retroactively. See United States v. Crudup, 375 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir.2004); United States v. Havener, 905 F.2d 3, 5-7 (1st Cir.1990). Moreover, McKenzie has provided no basis for us to conclude that consideration of her prior conviction under a common sense standard would yield a different result. [2] Pursuant to Spaulding, we conclude that the district court properly included McKenzie's prior Maine shoplifting conviction in its criminal history calculation and that she was accordingly not entitled to a safety-valve downward adjustment.