Opinion ID: 4278141
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ACCA Sentence

Text: Our review is de novo. United States v. Ridens, 792 F.3d 1270, 1272 (10th Cir. 2015). In the district court, Deiter claimed the judge improperly used his prior conviction of aiding and abetting a bank robbery as a qualifying offense under the residual clause of the ACCA. Basing an enhanced sentence on the residual clause would be a constitutional error under Johnson II’s pronouncements. Whether the residual clause was the raison d'etre for sentencing was intentionally left unaddressed by the judge because his prior conviction qualifies as a “violent felony” under the elements clause. Assuming error, it would have no legal significance (it was harmless as a matter of law) because, as the judge decided and as we now explain, aiding and abetting bank robbery qualifies as a “violent felony” under the ACCA’s elements clause.4 That disposes of Deiter’s only transcript to the jury was part of a “sound trial strategy.” See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 (quotation marks omitted). Given the evidence against Deiter, defense counsel’s strategy was not to conclusively show Deiter did not possess the firearm but rather to plant reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors as to whether he did so. To that end, he called a DNA expert who testified that “secondary transfer” of DNA may explain the presence of Deiter’s DNA on the firearm and holster. Under that theory, Whelan and Marquez obtained Deiter’s DNA on their hands when they handcuffed him and transferred his DNA, as well as his or her own (the unidentified DNA), to the holster and firearm when they touched those items. He also sought to undermine the thoroughness of Whelan’s investigation by reading the belt tape transcript to her and having her admit she did not ask the witness for a description of the man with the gun. Later, during closing argument, he told the jury that a witness had seen a man with a gun but Whelan never bothered to ask the witness to describe the man or ask the witness when she observed the events, thereby suggesting another man left the gun on the second-story breezeway at a previous time. While the strategy was far-fetched (given the other evidence) and ultimately proved to be unsuccessful, we cannot say it was unreasonable, especially in light of the deference we afford counsel’s performance. Id. 4 We entertain no doubt, grave or otherwise, as to the effect of the claimed constitutional error, see O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 435 (1995); it is harmless. - 10 - contested argument in this appeal. An offense satisfies the elements clause of the ACCA if it “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i). The Supreme Court has defined “physical force” as “violent force—that is, force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person.” Johnson v. United States (Johnson I), 559 U.S. 133, 140 (2010). In deciding whether a prior conviction constitutes a “violent felony” under the elements clause, “we apply the categorical approach, focusing on the elements of the crime of conviction, not the underlying facts.” United States v. Harris, 844 F.3d 1260, 1263 (10th Cir. 2017). That approach constrains our review. See Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184, 190-91 (2013) (“Because we examine what the state conviction necessarily involved, not the facts underlying the case, we must presume that the conviction rested upon nothing more than the least of the acts criminalized . . . .” (quotation marks omitted)); see also Harris, 844 F.3d at 1268 n.9 (“In applying the categorical approach, the Supreme Court has instructed us to identify the least culpable conduct criminalized by the state statute.”). We now proceed to do so. 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) provides in relevant part: Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take, from the person or presence of another, . . . any property or money or any other thing of value belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of, any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association . . . [s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.5 5 Section 2113(a) also prohibits (1) “obtain[ing] or attempt[ing] to obtain by - 11 - Deiter argues § 2113(a) is not a “violent felony” under the ACCA’s elements clause because it includes bank robbery by intimidation, which does not satisfy the extortion any property or money or any other thing of value belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of, any bank” and (2) “enter[ing] or attempt[ing] to enter any bank . . . with intent to commit in such bank . . . any felony affecting such bank . . . or any larceny.” Deiter has never relied on the latter. Nor did he raise the former in the district court. In this appeal (for the very first time), he argues “by force and violence,” “by intimidation” and “by extortion” are not separate elements but rather three separate means of committing the single crime of bank robbery. See Mathis v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016). Relying on that premise, he says neither bank robbery by intimidation nor bank robbery by extortion satisfies the elements clause. The government points out that Deiter did not raise his means versus elements or bank robbery by extortion arguments in the district court, restricting our review of them to plain error. His problems are more fundamental; he has waived appellate review of those arguments altogether. He did not raise those arguments in the district court (even though Mathis was decided early on in those proceedings) and has not requested plain error review on appeal, either in his opening or reply brief, which “‘surely marks the end of the road for an argument for reversal not first presented to the district court.’” United States v. Lamirand, 669 F.3d 1091, 1098 n.7 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1131 (10th Cir. 2011)); cf. United States v. Courtney, 816 F.3d 681, 684 (10th Cir. 2016) (reviewing argument for plain error in criminal appeal where appellant “argued plain error fully in his reply brief”). Not only that, he did not object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in which she concluded that § 2113(a)’s alternatives—“by force and violence or by intimidation” and “by extortion”—are elements. As such, she applied the modified categorical approach to determine which alternative element formed the basis of Deiter’s underlying conviction. Looking to the indictment, she found it “clear that he was convicted of federal bank robbery ‘by force, violence, and intimidation’ and not of bank robbery by extortion.” (R. Vol. 1 at 120.) We have “adopted a firm waiver rule under which a party who fails to make a timely objection to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions.” See Morales-Fernandez v. I.N.S., 418 F.3d 1116, 1119 (10th Cir. 2005). While we have recognized two exceptions to this rule, neither applies here because Deiter was and is represented by counsel, he was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences of not doing so, and he has not attempted to show the interests of justice require review. Id. (the firm waiver rule does not apply “when (1) a pro se litigant has not been informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences of failing to object, or when (2) the interests of justice require review” (quotation marks omitted)). Due to the waiver, we need not address the elements versus means conundrum. - 12 - violence test. According to him, the elements clause requires the intentional use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against a person. See Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004). Section 2113(a), on the other hand, is a general intent crime requiring only that the defendant know he was physically taking the money (the actus reus), not that he intended to intimidate. Indeed, whether an act is intimidating depends on whether the victim reasonably feared injury from the defendant’s actions. Therefore, Deiter posits, a defendant can be convicted of bank robbery even if he did not intend for an act to be intimidating; in other words, a conviction can rest simply on reckless or negligent conduct, which is not enough.6 See United States v. Zuniga-Soto, 527 F.3d 1110, 1124 (10th Cir. 2008). He faces a substantial headwind. We recently decided that federal bank robbery by intimidation categorically “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force” because intimidation involves the threatened use of physical force against the person of another. See United States v. McCranie, 889 F.3d 677, No. 17-1058, 2018 WL 2050093, at -4 (10th Cir. May 3, 2018); see also United States v. Ybarra, --- F. App’x ---, No. 17-2131, 2018 WL 1750547, at -4 (10th Cir. Apr. 12, 2018) (unpublished); United States v. 6 The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari review in Stokeling v. United States (S. Ct. No. 17-5554), to decide whether the Florida robbery statute, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 812.13, satisfies the ACCA’s elements clause. More specifically, the Court will decide whether a state law’s robbery statute which requires the defendant to overcome the victim’s resistance is categorically a “violent felony” under the ACCA’s elements clause if that state’s law requires only slight force to overcome that resistance. Deiter makes no argument regarding the level of force necessary to commit federal bank robbery. Accordingly, we decline to hold this case in abeyance until Stokeling is decided. - 13 - Higley, --- F. App’x ---, No. 17-1111, 2018 WL 1252093, at  (10th Cir. Mar. 9, 2018) (unpublished); United States v. McGuire, 678 F. App’x 643, 645-46 (10th Cir. 2017) (unpublished).7 These decisions align with every circuit to have addressed the issue.8 Deiter’s mens rea argument is unconvincing. First, his reliance on Zuniga-Soto is misplaced. There, we held that a crime requiring a mens rea of recklessness does not qualify as a “crime of violence” under USSG’s § 2L1.2’s elements clause. 527 F.3d at 1124. However, we have since recognized the Supreme Court’s decision in Voisine v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 136 S. Ct. 2272 (2016). See United States v. Pam, 867 F.3d 1191, 1208 (10th Cir. 2017). “A statute requiring proof only that the defendant acted willfully and with reckless disregard for the risk posed by that act to another person may categorically involve the use of physical force” under the ACCA.9 Id. 7 Higley and McGuire addressed whether bank robbery by intimidation constitutes a “crime of violence” under the elements clauses of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) and USSG § 4B1.2, respectively. However, those clauses are nearly identical to the ACCA’s elements clause and Deiter does not provide any reason for treating them differently. 8 See United States v. Ellison, 866 F.3d 32, 36-37 (1st Cir. 2017); United States v. Wilson, 880 F.3d 80, 84-85 (3d Cir. 2018); United States v. McNeal, 818 F.3d 141, 15354 (4th Cir. 2016); United States v. Brewer, 848 F.3d 711, 715-16 (5th Cir. 2017); United States v. McBride, 826 F.3d 293, 295-96 (6th Cir. 2016); United States v. Campbell, 865 F.3d 853, 856 (7th Cir. 2017); United States v. Harper, 869 F.3d 624, 625-27 (8th Cir. 2017); United States v. Watson, 881 F.3d 782, 785 (9th Cir. 2018); In re Sams, 830 F.3d 1234, 1238-39 (11th Cir. 2016). 9 Zuniga-Soto involved the elements clause of § 2L1.2, not that of the ACCA. For that reason, Pam, an ACCA case, expressly declined to decide whether Voisine had overruled Zuniga-Soto. See Pam, 867 F.3d at 1207 n.15. Nevertheless, a panel of this Court has applied the reasoning of Pam to the elements clause of USSG § 4B1.2 because it is identical to that of the ACCA and the defendant had not provided any basis for - 14 - In any event, § 2113(a) requires more than mere recklessness or negligence, see Leocal, 543 U.S. at 9 (“[T]he use of physical force against the person or property of another . . . most naturally suggests a higher degree of intent than negligent or merely accidental conduct”) (quotation marks omitted); it “requir[es] proof of general intent— that is, that the defendant possessed knowledge with respect to the actus reus of the crime (here, the taking of property of another by force and violence or intimidation).” See Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255, 268 (2000). Relying on Carter, other circuits have held that to be convicted of bank robbery by intimidation, the defendant must have at least known his actions were objectively intimidating.10 Our case law and pattern criminal jury instruction support this conclusion. See McCranie, 2018 WL 2050093, at  (“[E]very definition of intimidation requires a purposeful act that instills objectively reasonable fear (or expectation) of force or bodily injury.” (emphasis added)); United States v. Mitchell, 113 F.3d 1528, 1531 (10th Cir. 1997) (“In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support a finding of intimidation in the context of a bank robbery, we look to three factors: (1) whether the situation appeared dangerous, (2) whether the defendant intended to intimidate, and (3) whether the bank personnel were reasonable in their fear of death or injury.” (emphasis added)); Ybarra, 2018 WL 1750547, at  (“[I]ntimidation under the federal bank-robbery statute could exist only if treating them differently. See United States v. Sarracino, --- F. App’x ---, No. 17-2168, 2018 WL 1252095, at  n.3 (Mar. 9, 2018) (unpublished). 10 See Ellison, 866 F.3d at 38-39; Wilson, 880 F.3d at 85-88; McNeal, 818 F.3d at 155-56; McBride, 826 F.3d at 296; Campbell, 865 F.3d at 856-57; Watson, 881 F.3d at 785; United States v. Horsting, 678 F. App’x 947, 949-50 (11th Cir. 2017) (unpublished). - 15 - the defendant had intentionally acted in a way that would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities to fear bodily harm.” (emphasis added) (quotation marks omitted)); 10th Cir. Pattern Jury Instruction 2.77 (“[A] taking would not be by ‘means of intimidation’ if the fear, if any, resulted from the alleged victim’s own timidity rather than some intimidating conduct on the part of the defendant. The essence of the offense is the taking of money or property accompanied by intentional, intimidating behavior on the part of the defendant.” (emphasis added)).11 Deiter resists this result, saying his case is different because he pled guilty to aiding and abetting federal bank robbery. According to him, aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C. § 2 must be analyzed separately from the underlying crime and is not a categorical “violent felony” because § 2 does not have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. He analogizes aiding and abetting to conspiracy and attempt crimes, both of which this Court has decided are generally not violent felonies because they criminalize mere preparatory conduct. See United States v. Martinez, 602 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir. 2010); United States v. Fell, 511 F.3d 1035 (10th Cir. 2007). We are not persuaded. 11 Deiter claims our case law and pattern jury instruction are not relevant because his underlying conviction occurred in the Southern District of Florida and, as a result, Eleventh Circuit law controls. Yet, as we explain below, see supra note 12, he tries to avoid Eleventh Circuit law when it is unfavorable to him. He cannot have it both ways. Nevertheless, the Eleventh Circuit has rejected his arguments. See Horsting, 678 F. App’x at 949-50. - 16 - 18 U.S.C. § 2 provides in relevant part: “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” “[U]nder § 2 those who provide knowing aid to persons committing federal crimes, with the intent to facilitate the crime, are themselves committing a crime.” Rosemond v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 134 S. Ct. 1240, 1245 (2014) (quotation marks omitted). “[A] person is liable under § 2 for aiding and abetting a crime if (and only if) he (1) takes an affirmative act in furtherance of that offense, (2) with the intent of facilitating the offense’s commission,” i.e., “with full knowledge of the circumstances constituting the charged offense.” Id. at 1245, 1248-49; see also Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 619 (1949) (“[T]o aid and abet another to commit a crime it is necessary that a defendant in some sort associate himself with the venture, that he participate in it as in something that he wishes to bring about, that he seek by his action to make it succeed.” (quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Rosalez, 711 F.3d 1194, 1205 (10th Cir. 2013) (for an aiding and abetting conviction, the government must prove the defendant “shared in the intent to commit the underlying offense, willfully associated with the criminal venture, and aided the venture through affirmative action” (quotation marks omitted)). “Mere presence at a crime scene or knowledge alone that a crime is being committed is insufficient.” Rosalez, 711 F.3d at 1205 (quotation marks omitted). “[A] defendant must share in the intent to commit the underlying offense.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). - 17 - That being said, “it is well established that aiding and abetting is not an independent crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2; it simply abolishes the common-law distinction between principal and accessory.” United States v. Cooper, 375 F.3d 1041, 1049 (10th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted). This legal principle led the Supreme Court to conclude that a prior conviction for vehicle theft under Cal. Veh. Code Ann. § 10851(a) was categorically a “theft offense” under the Immigration and Nationality Act even though the California statute also prohibited aiding and abetting the theft. See Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 189-90 (2007). The generic definition of “theft offense” is the “taking of property or an exercise of control over property without consent with the criminal intent to deprive the owner of rights and benefits of ownership, even if such deprivation is less than total or permanent.” Id. at 189 (quotation marks omitted). The Ninth Circuit decided the California statute swept more broadly than the generic definition because it permitted conviction for aiding and abetting a theft. Id. at 188. It reasoned “one might ‘aid’ or ‘abet’ a theft without taking or controlling property” and therefore not satisfy the generic definition. Id. The Supreme Court rejected its reasoning: Since criminal law now uniformly treats [aiders and abettors and principals] alike, the [generic definition of theft offense] covers such aiders and abettors as well as principals. And the criminal activities of these aiders and abettors of a generic theft must themselves fall within the scope of the term theft in the federal [immigration] statute. Id. at 190 (quotation marks omitted). The Eleventh Circuit followed suit in In re Colon. It decided Colon’s conviction - 18 - for aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery qualified as a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)(A) because the substantive offense, Hobbs Act robbery, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another. 826 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2016). It reasoned: Aiding and abetting, under 18 U.S.C. § 2, is not a separate federal crime, but rather an alternative charge that permits one to be found guilty as a principal for aiding or procuring someone else to commit the offense. A person who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of an offense is punishable as a principal. Indeed, under § 2, the acts of the principal become those of the aider and abettor as a matter of law. Nothing in the language of § 924(c)(1) indicates that Congress intended to vitiate ordinary principles of aiding and abetting liability for purposes of sentencing under that subsection. This Court has held that a companion substantive Hobbs Act robbery conviction qualifies as a “crime of violence” under the use-of-force clause in § 924(c)(3)(A). Because an aider and abettor is responsible for the acts of the principal as a matter of law, an aider and abettor of a Hobbs Act robbery necessarily commits all the elements of a principal Hobbs Act robbery. And because the substantive offense of Hobbs Act robbery has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, . . . then an aider and abettor of a Hobbs Act robbery necessarily commits a crime that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another. Id. at 1305 (citations and quotation marks omitted).12 The Sixth Circuit joined the chorus in United States v. Tibbs, 685 F. App’x 456, 465 (6th Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (under plain error review, concluding aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery is a “crime of 12 Deiter says we are not bound by In re Colon, yet he also insists Eleventh Circuit law controls. See infra note 11. Convenient, but not compelling. He also invites us to follow the dissent in In re Colon, 826 F.3d at 1306-08 (Marten, J., dissenting). We decline the invitation. - 19 - violence” under § 924(c)(3) because, inter alia, Hobbs Act robbery is a “crime of violence”). And we suggested the same in McGuire. There, the district court concluded McGuire’s prior bank robbery conviction under § 2113(a) constituted a “crime of violence” under the elements clause of USSG § 4B1.2(1)(i). 678 F. App’x at 645. We agreed and declined to issue a COA. Id. at 64546. In doing so, we noted: “That McGuire was convicted as an aider and abettor and not as a principal is irrelevant to our analysis. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2, ‘whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.’”13 Id. at 645 n.3. Martinez and Fell are inapposite. In those cases, we decided neither conspiracy nor attempted second-degree burglary under the relevant state law satisfied the ACCA’s residual clause, i.e., neither involved conduct presenting a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. Martinez, 602 F.3d at 1169-73; Fell, 511 F.3d at 1038-44. That is because the relevant state law prohibited mere preparatory conduct, such as the purchasing of tools or reconnoitering, which created no risk of a violent confrontation 13 McGuire involved the definition of “crime of violence” under USSG § 4B1.2. The commentary to that guideline states: “‘Crime of violence’ . . . include[s] . . . aiding and abetting such offense[].” USSG § 4B1.2, comment. (n.1). The ACCA contains no similar language. Nevertheless, McGuire did not rely on the guideline commentary, but rather the language of § 2 itself, in deciding that McGuire’s conviction as an aider and abettor was irrelevant in deciding whether he had been convicted of a “crime of violence.” Compare McGuire, 678 F. App’x at 645 n.3, with United States v. O’Connor, 874 F.3d 1147, 1149 n.2 (10th Cir. 2017) (concluding fact that O’Connor’s conviction was for aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act robbery was immaterial to deciding whether that conviction was a “crime of violence” under § 4B1.2 because the commentary to the guideline states “crime of violence” includes aiding and abetting such offenses). - 20 - between the defendant and another person. Fell, 511 F.3d at 1044; Martinez, 602 F.3d at 1172-73. We are not here concerned with the residual clause.14 Moreover, unlike conspiracy and attempt, aiding and abetting is not a separate crime but simply eliminates the legal distinction between aiders and abettors and principals. Therefore, it makes sense to look to the underlying statute of conviction, rather than § 2, to decide whether the elements clause is satisfied.15 AFFIRMED. 14 Fell did say conspiracy to commit second degree burglary in Colorado did not satisfy the ACCA’s elements clause because it did not require the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. 511 F.3d at 1037. However, it provided no further explanation. Therefore, it is unclear whether it so decided because (1) Colorado’s conspiracy statute did not satisfy that clause, (2) Colorado’s second degree burglary statute did not satisfy the clause, or (3) both. 15 In Rosemond, the Supreme Court addressed what the government was required to show to establish a defendant aided and abetted a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), a “double-barreled crime” which prohibits “[1] using or carrying a firearm [2] when engaged in a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime.” 134 S. Ct. at 1245 (quotation marks omitted). The Court held (1) a defendant’s active participation in the underlying drug-trafficking or violent crime is sufficient to establish the affirmative act requirement of aiding and abetting liability and (2) the defendant must have advance knowledge that his confederate would be armed in order to satisfy the intent requirement. Id. at 1243, 1247-49. Deiter does not rely on Rosemond or suggest that he had to have advance knowledge that his co-defendant would use, attempt to use, or threaten to use physical force against the person of another for his prior conviction to be deemed a “violent felony” under the elements clause. What Rosemond teaches is that by pleading guilty to aiding and abetting unarmed bank robbery, Deiter admitted he took an affirmative act in furtherance of the bank robbery with the intent to facilitate that robbery, thereby exposing him to the same liability as a principal. - 21 -