Opinion ID: 2995440
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fire-Related Felonies and 18 U.S.C.

Text: sec. 844(h)(1) The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being subjected to trial and possible conviction more than once for the same offense. Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 365 (1983). However, for multiple sentences imposed in a single trial, the Double Jeopardy Clause does no more than prevent the sentencing court from prescribing greater punishment than the legislature intended. Id.; see also generally United States v. Handford, 39 F.3d 731, 735 (7th Cir. 1994) (explaining why the Double Jeopardy Clause has been interpreted in this way). Our focus, therefore, is on whether Congress intended to authorize the cumulative punishment of fire-related felonies such as cross-burning under 18 U.S.C. sec. 844(h)(1). See Hunter, 459 U.S. at 366- 67. We have previously held that Congress intended for fire-related felonies to serve as predicates for application of the sec. 844(h)(1) enhancement, which provides that whoever uses fire . . . to commit any felony . . . shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years . . . [not to] run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment. See Blacharski v. United States, 215 F.3d 792 (7th Cir. 2000); United States v. Hartbarger, 148 F.3d 777 (7th Cir. 1998); United States v. Hayward, 6 F.3d 1241 (7th Cir. 1993). In Hartbarger and Hayward, we held that the any felony language alone expressed Congress’ intent to reach fire-related felonies. See Hartbarger, 148 F.3d at 785; Hayward, 6 F.3d at 1246. Our decision in Blacharski rested on the in addition to and shall not run concurrently language./1 Colvin argues, however, that the language we relied upon in Hartbarger, Hayward, and Blacharski does not clearly express Congress’ intent to authorize the multiple punishment of fire-related felonies as required by the Supreme Court’s decision in Busic v. United States, 446 U.S. 398 (1980). The Busic court, interpreting an analogous statute, held that its any felony, shall [be] in addition to, and shall not run concurrently language was insufficiently clear to override the presumption that Congress did not enact two statutes proscribing the same offense. Busic, 466 U.S. at 405 (interpreting 18 U.S.C. sec. 924(c)’s statutory enhancement for use of a firearm in the commission of a felony); see also Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6, 12-13 (1978). The Court reasoned that these phrases did not make clear how Congress intended to mesh the new enhancement scheme with analogous provisions in pre-existing statutes defining federal crimes. Busic, 466 U.S. at 405. While Busic’s holding that Congress must clearly express its intent to authorize cumulative punishment is still good law, see United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1997), the Court has apparently retreated from its restrictive interpretation of this sort of language. In Gonzales, the Supreme Court was asked whether the 18 U.S.C. sec. 924(c) phrase any other term of imprisonment mean[t] what it sa[id] and could not be limited to some subset of prison sentences. Id. at 5-6 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court held that this language clearly expressed Congress’ desire to run sec. 924(c) enhancements consecutive to all prison terms, without limitation. Id. at 10. Therefore, we believe that our reliance on the breadth of the phrase any felony in interpreting sec. 844(h)(1) in Hartbarger and Hayward is consistent with the Supreme Court’s more recent pronouncement. Accord Sicurella, 157 F.3d at 179 (citing Gonzales). But even assuming that Hartbarger and Hayward (and Blacharski) are inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent, we believe the deadly or dangerous weapon or device language added by the 1988 amendment makes clear Congress’ intent to authorize cumulative punishment of fire- related felonies. The 1988 amendment clarified that any felony includ[es] a felony which provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device. As we explained in Hayward, the incidental use of fire does not fall within sec. 844(h)(1)’s ambit. See 6 F.3d at 1246. So the thief who uses a cigarette lighter to illuminate a keyhole does not use fire to commit the crime of burglary, but merely to facilitate commission. Id. By contrast, a defrauder who sets fire to his business to collect insurance proceeds uses fire to commit his crime. See United States v. Ruiz, 105 F.3d 1492, 1503-04 (1st Cir. 1997) cited with approval in United States v. Zendeli, 180 F.3d 879, 885 (7th Cir. 1999). This use of fire is inherently dangerous. See United States v. Grassie, 237 F.3d 1199, 1215 (5th Cir. 2001). The dangerousness of fire when used to commit a felony is evidenced in part by the fact that the use of uncontained gasoline, the accelerant used by many arsonists (and probably here by Colvin, Funke, and Mathis), is subject to federal regulation to reduce the hazard to persons and property arising from its misuse. See 18 U.S.C. sec.sec. 842-43; cf. United States v. Agrillo-Ladlad, 675 F.2d 905, 909 (7th Cir. 1982) (referring to Congressional concern over the difficulty in controlling the malicious use of . . . gasoline [and] other flammable liquids.). And cross-burnings, in particular, are dangerous. Indeed, it is their violent character that so effectively communicates their underlying racist ideology. Cross-burnings also have the serious potential to cause significant property damage, even when not so intended. Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding the 1988 amendment support our interpretation. Congress amended sec. 924(c) after the Supreme Court’s decision in Busic to ensure that sec. 924(c)’s enhancement is available even when the underlying felony already provides for enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a ’deadly or dangerous weapon or device.’ Gonzales, 520 U.S. at 10 (citing Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, P.L. 98-473, sec. 1005(a)); Handford, 39 F.3d at 734-35. The Supreme Court stated in Gonzales that this language eliminated the ambiguities it saw in the pre- amendment version of sec. 924(c). Id. We see no reason to treat Congress’ amendment to sec. 844(h)(1) differently than the Gonzales court treated the amendment of sec. 924(c). Fire used in the commission of a felony is no less inherently deadly or dangerous than a firearm. Cf. Grassie, 237 F.3d at 1215 ([B]y pairing fire with explosives in sec. 844(h)(1), Congress clearly placed these weapons in parity.). Actually, fire has the potential to be much more destructive and uncontrollable. A fire, for example, may destroy an entire building and those residing within it. A firearm cannot. And (although we need not resort to it because the statutory language is clear) the legislative history supports our analysis. See H.R. Rep. No. 91-1549, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. at 70, reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4007, 4046 (stating that Congress enacted sec. 844(h)(1) to carr[y] over . . . the stringent provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 relating to the use of firearms and the unlawful carrying of firearms to commit . . . a federal felony). Reading the statute in this way comports with the federal criminal sentencing scheme. Cf. Stewart, 65 F.3d at 928 n. 2 (noting that this interpretation is consistent with its resolution of the similar language of sec. 924(c)); United States v. Pospisil, 186 F.3d 1023, 1031 (8th Cir. 1999) (implicitly holding that cross-burnings are crimes of violence, and therefore subject to enhancement under sec. 924(c)). Like sec. 924(c), sec. 844(h)(1) was designed to discourage people who choose to commit a felony with a deadly or dangerous weapon from making a certain weapon their weapon of choice. See Simpson, 435 U.S. at 911 (discussing the legislative design behind sec. 924(c)); H.R. Rep. No. 91-1549, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. at 70, reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4007, 4046 (stating that sec. 844(h)(1) was similarly designed). Under sec. 844(h)(1), that weapon is fire. Finally, even if we believed that the statutory text was unclear, we would reach the same result applying the same elements rule of construction set forth in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). Applying this rule, we conclude that Congress intended to authorize cumulative punishment if each offense contains an element the other does not unless Congress expresses a contrary intent. Zendeli, 180 F.3d at 886; United States v. Fiore, 821 F.2d 127, 131 (2d Cir. 1987). One of the predicate offenses of which Colvin was convicted--intimidation and interference with the exercise of housing rights on the basis of race (42 U.S.C. sec. 3631)-- requires proof of several elements in addition to those elements required by sec. 844(h)(1)./2 And, of course, there is no clear indication in the legislative history that Congress did not intend cumulative punishment. Fiore, 821 F.2d at 131-32, 132 n. 6 (discussing legislative history). For these reasons, we stand by our holdings in Blacharski, Hartbarger, and Hayward that 18 U.S.C. sec. 844(h)(1) authorizes the cumulative punishment of fire-related felonies. Colvin also argues that 18 U.S.C. sec. 241 (conspiracy to violate civil rights) may not serve as a predicate felony for the application of sec. 844(h)(1) because one cannot use fire to form an agreement, relying on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Corona, 108 F.3d 565 (5th Cir. 1997). While we are inclined to agree with the Fifth Circuit’s analysis, we leave resolution of that issue for another day. We rest our decision on the use of substantive cross-burning, 42 U.S.C. sec. 3631, as the predicate felony.