Opinion ID: 4527409
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The term “crime of violence” means any

Text: offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that—
or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, or
kidnapping, aggravated assault, a forcible sex offense, robbery, arson, extortion, or the use or unlawful possession of a firearm described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a) or explosive material as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 841(c). 12 UNITED STATES V. BALDON The government argues that section 215 is a categorical crime of violence under both subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2). Subsection (a)(1) is commonly known as the “elements” or “force” clause, and subsection (a)(2) is often called the “enumerated offenses” clause. 6 See Bankston, 901 F.3d at 1106 n.4; Edling, 895 F.3d at 1155. Baldon argues that the government waived these arguments because it failed to raise them before the district court. “Generally, we do not entertain arguments on appeal that were not presented or developed before the district court.” Tibble v. Edison Int’l, 843 F.3d 1187, 1193 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). But we have discretion to consider waived issues in three circumstances: “in the ‘exceptional’ case in which review is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to preserve the integrity of the judicial process,” “when a new issue arises while appeal is pending because of a change in the law,” and “when the issue presented is purely one of law and either does not depend on the factual record developed below, or the pertinent record has been fully developed.” Bolker v. Comm’r, 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 1985). We exercise our discretion to consider the government’s argument that section 215 is a categorical crime of violence under the elements clause in § 4B1.2(a)(1) because there was a “change in the law.” Id. The Supreme Court decided Stokeling while Baldon’s appeal was pending. We also exercise our discretion to consider the government’s 6 The Court’s recent decision in Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779 (2020) does not affect our analysis. There, the Court addressed why the elements clause analysis, id. at 786, and the enumerated offenses clause analysis, id. at 785–86, for statutes like the one here, are not impacted by its opinion in Shular. UNITED STATES V. BALDON 13 argument that section 215 is a crime of violence under the enumerated offenses clause in § 4B1.2(a)(2) because it “is purely one of law and . . . does not depend on the factual record developed below.” Id. We do so because as explained below, both analyses turn on the same question: Can a section 215 conviction be based on fear of injury to property alone?