Opinion ID: 168248
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Criminal H istory

Text: M r. Lake also challenges the district court’s use of his prior juvenile confinement to calculate two criminal history points under U .S.S.G. § 4A1.2(d)(2)(A). This calculation placed him in criminal history category II. M r. Lake claims juvenile adjudications in W yoming are “special proceedings” that do not involve any determination of guilt, and as such should not count toward the criminal history determination under the guidelines. Had the court correctly calculated his criminal history, M r. Lake contends, he might have been eligible for the so-called “safety-valve” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a), a statutory escape hatch which allows a defendant to evade the mandatory minimum sentence for certain offenses if the district court finds the defendant meets five specified criteria. Among those criteria: the defendant must not have more than one criminal history point and must not have possessed a firearm in connection with the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), U .S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a). W e note at the outset that M r. Lake would not qualify for the safety-valve provision regardless of the disposition of his criminal history claim, for the obvious reason that he possessed a firearm in connection with the offense. Nevertheless, we proceed to review the factual elements of the district court’s calculation of criminal history for clear error and its legal determinations de novo. United States v. Serrata, 425 F.3d 886, 906 (10th Cir. 2005). -5- The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines provide that for offenses committed by a defendant prior to the age of eighteen, two criminal history points should be added for each “juvenile sentence to confinement of at least sixty days,” provided the defendant was released from confinement within five years of the instant offense. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(d)(2)(A). M r. Lake was confined for a total of 148 days, a fact he does not dispute. He claims only that his confinement is not relevant for calculating criminal history because the predicate adjudication involved no determination of guilt. But the guidelines do not require a determination of guilt. They require prior confinement, and for good reason: states label their juvenile proceedings in different ways. A number of states continue to treat juvenile adjudications as civil matters. M any, like W yoming, avoid using the terms “guilt” and “innocence.” Accordingly, the guidelines focus on conduct rather than terminology. W e have held that section 4A1.2(d)(2) “applies to offenses for conduct that is criminalized regardless of one’s status, but which the defendant comm itted prior to age eighteen.” United States v. M iller, 987 F.3d 1462, 1466 (10th Cir. 1993). That is, if the offense for which the juvenile defendant was confined was not specific to his status as a juvenile, but would have been criminal regardless of his age, that conduct is relevant for calculating criminal history under the guidelines. -6- M r. Lake was confined for assault and battery, an offense most assuredly not specific to his status as a juvenile. As we have explained in a different context, Congress did not intend the guidelines to treat juveniles accused of the same crime and with otherwise identical criminal histories differently from each other simply because different states call their juvenile proceedings by different names. United States v. David A., 436 F.3d 1201, 1213 (10th Cir. 2006). W hatever W yoming labels its juvenile adjudications, the district court appropriately counted M r. Lake’s prior confinement towards his criminal history. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of W yoming is AFFIRM ED. Entered for the Court, M ichael W . M cConnell