Opinion ID: 779811
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: 5 We review a sentencing court's factual determinations for clear error, while interpretations of the guidelines are reviewed de novo. United States v. Owolabi, 69 F.3d 156, 162 (7th Cir.1995). Whether an offense is a crime of violence for purposes of sentencing is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo. United States v. Fife, 81 F.3d 62, 63 (7th Cir.1996). 6 For crimes involving prohibited firearms transactions, including the crimes for which Bryant was sentenced in this case, the federal sentencing guidelines provide for varying base offense levels, depending on the circumstances of both the offense and the offender. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1. For example, if the defendant was a prohibited person at the time the offense was committed, as was the case with Bryant, the guidelines provide for a base offense level of 14. 3 See id. § 2K2.1(a)(6). If, however, the defendant committed any part of the instant offense subsequent to sustaining one felony conviction of ... a crime of violence, the guidelines provide for an elevated base offense level of 20. See id. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). 7 The commentary accompanying § 2K2.1 notes that crime of violence has the meaning given that term in § 4B1.2(a) of the guidelines and application note 1 of the commentary for that section. See id. § 2K2.1 cmt. n. 5. Section 4B1.2(a) defines a crime of violence as 8 any offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that — 9 (1) has an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, or 10 (2) is burglary of a dwelling, arson, or extortion, involves the use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. 11 Id. § 4B1.2(a) (emphasis added). The commentary for § 4B1.2(a) notes that crime of violence includes any offense for which the conduct set forth ( i.e., expressly charged) in the count of which the defendant was convicted ... by its nature, presented a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. Id. § 4B1.2 cmt. n. 1. 12 In United States v. Franklin, this Court held that the crime of escape is a crime of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) — a provision with language identical to that of § 4B1.2(a) of the sentencing guidelines — because escape involves a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. 302 F.3d 722, 725 (7th Cir.2002) (quotation omitted). We said that in making such a risk determination, `the benchmark should be the possibility of violent confrontation, not whether one can postulate a nonconfrontational hypothetical scenario.' Id. at 723 (quoting United States v. Davis, 16 F.3d 212, 217 (7th Cir.1994)). 13 In Franklin, we cited favorably to the decisions of other circuits that had recognized the crime of escape as a crime of violence, including the Tenth Circuit, which noted that [e]very escape scenario is a powder keg, which may or may not explode into violence and result in physical injury to someone at any given time, but which always has the serious potential to do so. Id. at 724 (quoting United States v. Gosling, 39 F.3d 1140, 1142 (10th Cir.1994)); see also United States v. Abernathy, 277 F.3d 1048, 1051 (8th Cir.2002) (noting every escape, even where the prisoner merely walks away, involves a potential risk of injury to others); United States v. Houston, 187 F.3d 593, 594-95 (6th Cir.1999) (holding that escape from county workhouse or jail is a violent felony because of potential risk of injury); United States v. Hairston, 71 F.3d 115, 118 (4th Cir.1995) (finding escape by stealth inherently presents serious potential risk of physical injury). 14 Bryant asks this Court to refine our decision in Franklin by holding that not every crime of escape amounts to a crime of violence. He urges this Court to instead follow a fact-specific approach when determining if a particular crime of escape should be categorized as a crime of violence. Specifically, he argues that the type of escape with which he was charged — failure to return to a halfway house after being absent on a work release — is more appropriately thought of as a failure to return than as an escape. According to his reasoning, a failure to return to a halfway house after being absent with permission presents so much less of a risk of violence that it must be considered different and distinct from a bust-out or slither-away type of escape. 15 Our decision in Franklin, however, forecloses that argument. In that case, we rejected the defendant's argument that escape convictions cannot be categorically classified as violent felonies because some prisoners escape without causing harm to others. Franklin, 302 F.3d at 724. We noted that [t]o determine whether a particular offense is a violent felony, sentencing courts take a categorical approach, looking to the statutory elements of the crime, rather than the particular facts of the underlying conviction. Id. at 723 (citations omitted). 16 Bryant's argument is also inconsistent with the commentary to the sentencing guidelines provision defining a crime of violence. The commentary specifically notes that it is the conduct set forth ( i.e., expressly charged) in the count of which the defendant was convicted — not the particular facts of the defendant's situation — that is relevant to the question of whether an offense is a crime of violence. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 cmt. n. 1. In addition, Bryant's approach risks opening the courts to countless arguments as to whether a crime is actually an escape or merely a failure to return. In a similar context, the Supreme Court rejected such a fact-bound, case-by-case approach, noting the practical difficulties and potential unfairness of a factual approach. Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 601, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990) (embracing a categorical approach to determining whether an offense qualifies as a violent felony under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)). We believe that treating the crime of escape as a category avoids these difficult line-drawing problems.