Opinion ID: 151997
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Similar in Degree of Risk Posed

Text: Although we considered the degree of risk posed by rioting at a correctional institution in the course of deciding defendant's first appeal, see Johnson, 265 Fed.Appx. at 11, we did so under a plain error standard of review and so that holding does not dictate the outcome here. To the extent our case law has not explicitly recognized this rule, we now adopt the Fifth Circuit's holding in Perillo v. Johnson, 205 F.3d 775, 780 (5th Cir.2000), that the application of law-of-the-case doctrine is generally inappropriate when relevant issues are governed by different standards of review. Rioting at a correctional institution is similar to the ACCA's enumerated offenses in the degree of risk posed only if the conduct encompassed by the elements of the offense, in the ordinary case, presents a serious potential risk of injury to another. James, 550 U.S. at 208, 127 S.Ct. 1586 (emphases added); id. at 207-08, 127 S.Ct. 1586 (explaining that the ACCA's residual provision speaks in terms of a `potential risk' and that Congress intended to encompass possibilities even more contingent or remote than a simple `risk,' much less a certainty). The Supreme Court has observed that the ACCA's enumerated offenses all create significant risks of bodily injury or confrontation that might result in bodily injury.  Id. at 199, 127 S.Ct. 1586 (emphasis added). The main risk of burglary, for example, arises not from the simple physical act of wrongfully entering onto another's property, but rather from the possibility of a face-to-face confrontation between the burglar and a third party whether an occupant, a police officer, or a bystanderwho comes to investigate. Id. at 203, 127 S.Ct. 1586; see also Thrower, 584 F.3d at 73 (describing the potential risks associated with burglary) (citing Taylor, 495 U.S. at 588, 110 S.Ct. 2143). Under this standard, we have no trouble concluding that rioting at a correctional institution presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). Prisons are inherently dangerous institutions, Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 391, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996), where prison guards are greatly outnumbered by inmates many of whom have a history of violence or of aggressive tendencies. Although a burglary gives rise to a mere risk of confrontation, leading or joining a disorder, disturbance, strike, riot or other organized disobedience to the rules and regulations [of a correctional institution], Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-179b, renders confrontation with guards or other law enforcement authorities a virtual certainty. The risk of physical injury arises not only from this confrontation, but also from the fact that prisons are like powder kegs, where even the slightest disturbance can have explosive consequences. See Sec. & Law Enforcement Emps. v. Carey, 737 F.2d 187, 213 (2d Cir.1984) (noting the powder-keg nature of a prison). Every violation of prison rules creates a risk that fellow inmates will join in the disturbance, oppose it with force, or simply use its occurrence to engage in other acts of violence. See, e.g., Rivera, 619 A.2d at 1148 (describing how a strike of the prison mess hall quickly escalated into a full-fledged riot with inmates looting buildings, running in all directions, throwing rocks[,] and setting fires). For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the conduct encompassed by the elements of [rioting at a correctional institution], in the ordinary case, presents a serious potential risk of injury to another. See James, 550 U.S. at 208, 127 S.Ct. 1586.