Opinion ID: 4512260
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged Legal Error

Text: The district court analyzed whether Curtis’s conduct created “a substantial risk of serious bodily injury.” USSG § 3A1.2(c). Curtis argues that the district court committed legal error by failing to consider instead whether his conduct constituted aggravated assault. To support this argument, he points us to an application note, which observes that section 3A1.2(c) “applies in circumstances tantamount to aggravated assault.” USSG § 3A1.2, cmt. n.4(A). Curtis cites no authority outlining the contours of “circumstances tantamount to aggravated assault.” Yet the note he cites does just that. It clarifies that section 3A1.2(c)’s “applicability is limited to assaultive conduct . . . that is sufficiently serious to create at least a ‘substantial risk of serious bodily injury.’” Id. The application note therefore confirms that courts should apply the standard found in the Guideline as written and the district court did not commit legal error in so doing. Curtis also argues that section 3A1.2 applies to only “the most egregious conduct covered by the offense.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 12. To support this argument, he misconstrues commentary accompanying Amendment 663 to the Guidelines. The Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment 663 in response to the Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-273, § 11008, 116 Stat. 1758, 1818–19 (2002). That Act increased the maximum statutory penalty for violating 18 U.S.C. § 111, Curtis’s statute of conviction, from 10 years to 20 years. § 11008(b), 116 Stat. at 1818. It also directed the Sentencing Commission to consider whether the Guidelines remained “adequate to ensure punishment at or near 4 the maximum penalty for the most egregious conduct covered by the offense” following the Act’s passage. § 11008(e)(2)(D), 116 Stat. at 1819. Amendment 663 therefore increased the sentencing enhancement for assaulting a guard in a manner creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury from three levels to six levels. See USSG App. C, Vol. III at 8–10. And the commentary noted that the “increase comport[ed] with the directive in the [Federal Judiciary Protection] Act to ‘ensure punishment at or near the maximum penalty for the most egregious conduct covered by the offense’ for offenses against federal officers, officials, and employees.” Id. at 12 (quoting § 11008(e)(2)(D), 116 Stat. at 1819). But nothing in the commentary suggests that amended Guideline section 3A1.2 applies to only particularly egregious conduct. In fact, it contemplates application of section 3A1.2’s six-level enhancement to mere threats with a base offense level of 12—i.e., two levels lower than Curtis’s base offense level of 14. See USSG App. C, Vol. III at 12. And it states that “[t]he six level enhancement . . . applies to assaultive conduct against . . . prison officials if the defendant committed the assault in a manner creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury.” Id. The district court did not commit legal error by failing to evaluate whether Curtis’s actions amounted to the most egregious conduct covered by 18 U.S.C. § 111.