Court Opinion

ID: 9495788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:10:23.531714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:12.041335
License: Public Domain

CLEMENT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Two reasonable propositions underlie the majority’s decision: first, that one can use force against another without intending to use that force; and second, that a *200criminal statute’s requirement that the defendant cause serious bodily harm also encompasses the requirement that the defendant use force to bring about the harm. Both premises are contrary to settled precedent. I respectfully dissent.
I. Conflict with Chapa-Garza
The majority concludes that it is possible for a crime to “ha[ve] as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another,” U.S. SENTENCING Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2 application note l(B)(ii)(I) (“U.S.S.G.”), even where the crime does not require the defendant to have intentionally used force. That conclusion collides with this Court’s decision in United States v. Chapa-Garza, 243 F.3d 921 (5th Cir.2001), which held that a Texas felony DWI conviction was not a “crime of violence” for purposes of a neighboring Sentencing Guidelines subsection, also involving the interpretation of using physical force against another. We stated:
The criterion that the defendant use physical force against the person or property of another is most reasonably read to refer to intentional conduct, not an accidental, unintended event. The AMERICAN HERITAGE COLLEGE DICTIONARY (3rd ed.1997) defines the verb “use” as:
“1. To put into service or apply for a purpose; employ. 2. To avail oneself of; practice: use caution. 3. To conduct oneself toward; treat or handle: used his colleagues well. 4. To seek or achieve an end by means of; exploit: felt he was being used. 5. To take or consume; partake of: She rarely used alcohol”
The four relevant definitions indicate that “use” refers to volitional, purposeful, not accidental, employment of whatever is being “used”.
Id. at 926 (emphasis in original). In a dissent from the denial of en banc rehearing in Chapa-Garza, Judge Barksdale, joined by no other judge, cited a different dictionary in disagreeing with the Chapa-Garza panel and arriving at the same conclusion underlying the majority’s decision today: “It is true that ‘use’ may more often refer to the intentional use of force; but without question, force may be used accidentally.” 262 F.3d 479, 482 (5th Cir. 2001) (Barksdale, J., dissenting) (footnote omitted).
The majority attempts to distinguish Chapa-Garza by pointing out, correctly, that the Chapar-Garza panel was interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 16(b),1 which is somewhat different than Guideline § 2L1.2. Compare 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) (“any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves the substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense”) with U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 application note l(B)(ii)(I) (“an offense under federal, state, or local law that has an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another”). In fact, § 2L1.2 is almost identical to § 16(b)’s neighbor, 18 U.S.C. § 16(a).2
*201Although § 16(b) is different (it only-covers felonies, for instance), the disposi-tive language in Chapctr-Garza was substantially identical to the language at issue here. The Chapa-Garza panel focused only on the phrase “physical force against the person or property of another may be used”; here, we are focused only on the phrase “use of physical force against the person of another.” I see no difference between the two, except that the former pertains to property, as well as persons.
Considering the substantially identical phrasing, it is surprising that the majority “question[s] whether Chapa-Garza would have read a state of mind requirement into the revised definition of ‘crime of violence’ ” in § 2L1.2. Maj. Op. at 198. The Chapa-Garza panel, referencing a dictionary, determined the ordinary meaning of the use of physical force against another without looking to any of the neighboring language that might distinguish the context of § 2L1.2. It is specious to suppose that had the Chapa-Garza panel been faced with the “crime of violence” definition in § 2L1.2, the Court would have referenced a different dictionary (perhaps Judge Barksdale’s) to define “use.” Even more telling, the Chapar-Garza panel quotes with approval an excerpt from a Third Circuit case stating that “[u]se of physical force is an intentional act” for purposes of the nearly identical § 16(a). 243 F.3d at 926 (quoting United States v. Parson, 955 F.2d 858, 866 (3d Cir.1993)).
Even if it were possible to distinguish § 2L1.2 and § 16(b) with respect to the meaning of use of force against another, § 2L1.2 is a much stronger candidate for the intentionality requirement, implying that, a fortiori, Chapar-Garza should control. First, § 2L1.2 examines the defendant’s state of mind directly, whereas § 16(b), in the passive voice (“may be used in the course of committing the offense”) focuses on the nature of the felony. See Park v. INS, 252 F.3d 1018, 1024 n. 7 (9th Cir.2001) (explaining the possible difference between § 16(a) and § 16(b) with respect to intent). Second, unlike § 16(b), § 2L1.2 covers threatened and attempted uses of force. Since attempts and threats can only be intentional, see Black’s Law DICTIONARY 123, 1489 (7th ed.1999), then-grouping alongside the actual use of force suggests that § 2L1.2 was meant to address intentional acts only. See United States v. Rutherford, 54 F.3d 370, 373 (7th Cir.1995) (making the same point with respect to Guideline § 4B1.2). Third, the enhancement referencing § 16(b)’s “crime of violence” is only eight levels, whereas the § 2L1.2 “crime of violence” definition is 16 levels. Compare U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) with U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). Thus, if only one of either § 2L1.2 or § 16(b) ought to require intent, it is the former, not the latter. Today’s decision brings about precisely the opposite result.
Turning an ordinary statutory construction principle on its head, the majority relies on the fact that the Sentencing Commission recently revised § 2L1.2 — but without explicitly incorporating the Cha-pa-Garza gloss — to suggest the Sentencing Commission intended to repudiate Chapar-Garza. It was the prevailing view of the courts of appeals at the time of the 2001 amendments that the use of physical force against another was limited to intentional use, for purposes of determining whether a crime was a crime of violence. See Chapa-Garza, 243 F.3d at 926; Rutherford, 54 F.3d at 372-73 (holding drunk *202driving assault not a “crime of violence” under Guideline § 4Bl.l(a)(l)); Parson, 955 F.2d at 866 (noting that use of force is an intentional act for § 16(a) purposes). In Rutherford, for example, the Seventh Circuit interpreted Guideline § 4B1.2, which is substantially identical to § 2L1.2, as requiring the intentional use of force:
Force is exerted in many instances where it is not employed for any particular purpose. For example, earthquakes and avalanches involve the exertion of a tremendous amount of force. Such disasters, however, are freaks of nature; we can identify no intelligence or purpose behind them. Referring to a randomly occurring avalanche as a “use” of force would torture the English language. Likewise, a drunk driving accident is not the result of plan, direction, or purpose but of recklessness at worst and misfortune at best. A drunk driver who injures a pedestrian would not describe the incident by saying he “used” his car to hurt someone. In ordinary English, the word “use” implies intentional availment.
54 F.3d at 372-73 (footnote omitted). Against the backdrop of Chapar-Garza, Rutherford, and Parson, and with zero cases to the contrary, it is unthinkable that the Sentencing Commission would have expected that the phrase “use of physical force against the person of another” to be interpreted as the majority has interpreted the phrase. This common sense observation is analogous to the familiar statutory interpretation principle that “ ‘Congress is presumed to be aware of an administrative or judicial interpretation of a statute and to adopt that interpretation when it reenacts a statute without change.’ ” Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. J.J. Curran, 456 U.S. 353, 382 n. 66, 102 S.Ct. 1825, 72 L.Ed.2d 182 (1982) (quoting Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 414 n. 8, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975)); see alsoCannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 696-97, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (holding a private right of action under Title IX because, when enacted, the courts had already construed the critical language to have created one).
A recent case, United States v. Caicedo-Cuero, 312 F.3d 697, 706-11 (5th Cir.2002), illustrates this principle, coincidentally, in the context of Guideline § 2L1.2. Caice-do-Cuero argued that, with the 2001 amendments, the guideline definition of “drug trafficking offense” was intended to supersede the broader statutory definition of “drug trafficking offense,” even though one subdivision of § 2L1.2 explicitly referenced the statute, instead of the guideline definition. Id. at 708. Caicedo-Cuero emphasized the peculiarity that, in imposing the enhancement he received, “a court would have to find that the defendant’s prior conviction both is and is not a drug trafficking offense.” Id. (emphasis in original).3 In rejecting the argument, the Court pointed out that the same peculiarity exists with respect to the multiple definitions of “crime of violence,” citing (coincidentally) Chapa-Garza. Id. at 707-11. The Court emphasized that the Sentencing Commission apparently approved of. the peculiarity: “We presume that the sentencing Commission had knowledge of this practice when it drafted the 2001 amendments.” Id. at 710.
*203Moreover, the notes accompanying the 2001 amendments to § 2L1.2 explicitly state that the amendments are intended to render moot an unrelated circuit split, see U.S.S.G. app. C, comment to amend. 632 (2001), further suggesting that the Sentencing Commission was aware of judicial interpretations but chose not to change them. Since Chapa-Garza, courts have adopted its interpretation of use of physical force with respect to § 16(a), a statute which, again, is virtually identical to the § 2L1.2 definition. See United States v. Trinidad-Aquino, 259 F.3d 1140, 1145 (9th Cir.2001) (“[T]he presence of the volitional ‘use ... against’ requirement in both prongs of 18 U.S.C. § 16 means that a defendant cannot commit a ‘crime of violence’ if he negligently — rather than intentionally or recklessly — hits someone or something with a physical object.”); Bazan Reyes v. INS, 256 F.3d 600, 609 (7th Cir.2001) (“Although a conviction for homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle requires that the offender actually hit someone, it does not require that he intentionally used force to achieve that result ... [tjherefore, application of § 16(a) to [defendant’s] conviction is foreclosed....”); cf. Dalton v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 200, 206 (2d Cir.2001) (requiring intent under § 16(b)).
The practical result of today’s decision is that the government need not show the intentional use of force for a prior offense to qualify for the 16-level “crime of violence” enhancement, but the government would be required to show the intentional use of force when an eight-level enhancement is sought under the “crime of violence” definition in § 16(b).4 In other words, a higher showing of intentionality is now required to receive the lesser enhancement. Not only is that a confusing and backwards result, the signal it sends to the bench and bar is that the same statutory words used in the same context cannot be expected to be interpreted alike if the words appear in different sections.
Finally, today’s holding will multiply the irrationality of having several definitions of “crime of violence” scattered throughout the U.S.Code and Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Charles, 301 F.3d 309, 315-16 (5th Cir.2002) (en banc) (DeMoss, J., specially concurring). By my count, there are no less than sixteen instances where the use of physical force against another phrasing is used in various definitions in different contexts. See 18 U.S.C. § 16 (“crime of violence”); 18 U.S.C. § 521(c)(2) (“criminal street gang”); 18 U.S.C. § 921(1)(33)(A) (“misdemeanor crime of domestic violence”); 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(8)(B)(ii) (to whom it is prohibited to sell firearms); 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) (who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, or possessing firearms); 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3) (“crime of violence” in firearms offense penalties); 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B) (“violent felony” in firearms offense penalties); 18 U.S.C. § 3156(a)(4) (“crime of violence” in release and detention procedures); 18 U.S.C. § 373 (“solicitation to commit a crime of violence”); 18 U.S.C. § 3559 (“serious violent felony”); 18 U.S.C. § 5032 (when a juvenile may be subject to criminal prosecution); 28 U.S.C. § 540A(e)(l) (“felony crime of violence” for travelers); 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations *204Authorization Act, Pub.L. No. 107-273, § 2953, 116 Stat. 1758, 1795-95 (2002) (“violent offender” in law enforcement appropriations); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 (“crime of violence or sexual abuse” in sentencing procedures); U.S.S.G. § 2Gl.l(b) (specific offense characteristics of sex crimes); U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 application note l(B)(ii) (“crime of violence” for specific offense characteristics of unlawfully remaining or entering the United States); U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) (“crime of violence” in career offender provision). Today’s decision sends mixed signals to the bench and bar as to the proper interpretation of those provisions. At the very least, the phrasing use of physical force against another should be interpreted the same under the various definitions of “crime of violence” within the Sentencing Guidelines. Today’s decision calls into question even that most basic coherence.
II. Conflict with Gracia-Cantu
In United States v. Gracia-Cantu, this Court held that the Texas crime of causing injury to a child was not a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) — again, which is virtually identical to the § 2L1.2 definition — because the “results-oriented” crime does not have as an element the use of force against a person. 302 F.3d 308, 311-12 (5th Cir.2002). We stated:
Gracia-Cantu persuasively argues that his prior offense does not constitute a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) because section 22.04(a) of the Texas Penal Code, the statute criminalizing injury to a child, does not require that the perpetrator actually use, attempt to use, or threaten to use physical force against a child. Rather, section 22.04(a) is results-oriented in that the culpable mental state must relate to the result of a defendant’s conduct rather than to the conduct itself.
Id. Vargas-Duran was convicted of intoxication assault, which, just like the injury to a child statute, is “results-oriented.” Compare Texas Penal Code Ann. § 49.07 (Vernon 1994) (intoxication assault) with Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.04(a) (Vernon 2002) (injury to a child). That is, neither statute mentions using force; both penalize causing injury. Id.
One possible distinction between the statutes is that it is easy to imagine cases where a child is injured without force (neglect, for instance), but it is a bit more difficult to imagine cases where a drunk driver causes serious bodily injury without force. Surely most intoxication assault prosecutions involve a collision, and hence, some force. Nevertheless, the statute does not require that the defendant use force. For instance, if a drunk driver swerves off the road, causing a pedestrian to dive into a ditch and become seriously injured, the Texas statute is doubtlessly violated, even though there has been no actual application of force to anyone. Consider also the case where a drunk driver’s near miss causes a heart attack. In this respect, today’s decision cannot be squared with Gracia-Cantu.
III. Conclusion
Although I might find the majority’s arguments persuasive were we writing on a clean slate or deciding the case en banc, precedent compels me to vote otherwise. I respectfully dissent.

. The issue in Chapa-Garza was whether the prior offense was an "aggravated felony” for purposes of a 16-level enhancement under Guideline § 2L1.2. 243 F.3d at 923. The definition of "aggravated felony" ultimately pointed to, among other things, the statutory definition of "crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 16. Id. In 2001, the "aggravated felony” enhancement was reduced to eight levels, instead of 16, but the same definition applies. See U.S.S.G. app. C, comment to amend. 632 (2001).

. Section 16(a) defines "crime of violence” as an "offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” (Emphasis added). The "or property” *201language is the only difference between the definitions. Cf. U.S.S.G. § 2.L1.2 application note l(B)(ii)(I).

. Caicedo-Cuero received an eight-level sentencing enhancement for having been convicted of an "aggravated felony” under Guideline § 2L1.2; in particular, he had committed a "drug trafficking offense” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Id. at 706. Guideline § 2L1.2 contains a separate 12-point enhancement for having been convicted of a "drug trafficking offense,” as defined more narrowly in the guidelines. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 (2001).

. The eight-level increase for having committed an "aggravated felony” eventually points to the "crime of violence” definition in 18 U.S.C. § 16. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 application note 2 (defining "aggravated felony” by reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) (defining "aggravated felony” as, among other things, a "crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 16). When Chapa-Garza was decided, the "aggravated felony” increase was 16 levels, instead of eight. See U.S.S.G. app. C, comment to amend. 632 (2001).