Opinion ID: 4121052
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Enumerated Offense of Extortion

Text: That does not end our inquiry, however. The categorical framework requires us to determine whether the least culpable conduct would qualify as a “crime of violence” under the guidelines, not just a single one of the enumerated offenses. We must determine whether the least culpable conduct 17 Id.; see also United States v. Tellez-Martinez, 517 F.3d 813, 815 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (holding that Cal. Penal Code § 211 does fall within the generic definition of robbery). 18 Id. 19 Id. (quoting Santiesteban-Hernandez, 469 F.3d at 380). 20 Id. 21 See People v. McGee, 133 P.3d 1054, 1057 (Cal. 2007), abrogated on other grounds by Descamps, 133 S. Ct. at 2276 (noting that Nevada robbery, on its face, did not qualify as a serious felony in California because, unlike California robbery, Nevada permits “a taking accomplished by fear of future injury”)). 9 Case: 16-50074 Document: 00513855038 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/30/2017 No. 16-50074 (involving future danger), which does not qualify as the enumerated “crime of violence” of robbery, nevertheless still qualifies as another “crime of violence.” We conclude that such conduct qualifies as generic extortion. The generic, contemporary definition of extortion is “obtaining something of value from another with his consent induced by the wrongful use of force, fear, or threats.” 22 Montiel-Cortes argues that the Nevada statute required that the taking be against the victim’s will, whereas the generic definition of extortion requires the victim’s consent. We disagree. The Nevada statute provided: 1. Robbery is the unlawful taking of personal property from the person of another, or in the person’s presence, against his or her will, by means of force or violence or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his or her person or property, or the person or property of a member of his or her family, or of anyone in his or her company at the time of the robbery. A taking is by means of force or fear if force or fear is used to:
(b) Prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; or (c) Facilitate escape. The degree of force used is immaterial if it is used to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property. A taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear. 23 Although the statute uses the phrase “against his or her will,” implying a lack of consent, it also emphasizes that the force be “used to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property.” In other words, 22 Scheidler v. Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc., 537 U.S. 393, 409-10 (2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). 23 Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.380 (emphasis added). 10 Case: 16-50074 Document: 00513855038 Page: 11 Date Filed: 01/30/2017 No. 16-50074 there is consent only in the narrowest sense, but that consent is only given because of a threat. In a more general sense, the consent is against the victim’s will. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has noted that “the ‘with consent’ element of generic extortion is not inconsistent with the ‘against the will’ element of a Cal. Penal Code § 211 conviction for a taking involving threats to property,” 24 quoting from a treatise in support: It is sometimes said that robbery differs from statutory extortion in those states which require property acquisition in that in the former the taking of property must be “against the will” of the victim, while in the latter the taking must be “with the consent” of the victim, induced by the other’s unlawful threat; but, in spite of the different expressions, there is no difference here, for both crimes equally require that the defendant's threats induce the victim to give up his property, something which he would not otherwise have done. 25 We agree and therefore conclude there is no meaningful distinction between the Nevada statute’s formulation and the generic, contemporary definition of extortion, at least with respect to a Nevada robbery involving a future danger.