united states v. soto-rivera, 1st cir. (2016)

7/26/2019 United States v. Soto-Rivera, 1st Cir. (2016)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-soto-rivera-1st-cir-2016 1/22

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1216

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

ANTHONY SOTO- RI VERA,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Franci sco A. Besosa, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Thompson, Hawki ns, * and Barr on,Ci r cui t J udges.

J ohnny Ri ver a- Gonzál ez f or appel l ant . Ti f f any V. Monrose, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h

whom Rosa Emi l i a Rodr í guez- Vél ez, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, andNel son Pér ez- Sosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wer e onbr i ef , f or appel l ee.

J anuar y 22, 2016

* Of t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.



- 2 -

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Thi s appeal cal l s f or us t o

consi der t he di st r i ct j udge' s det er mi nat i on t hat appel l ant Ant hony

Sot o- Ri ver a ( "Sot o- Ri ver a" ) shoul d be sent enced as a Car eer

Of f ender because he commi t t ed a "cr i me of vi ol ence" as def i ned by

t he Uni t ed St at es Sent enci ng Gui del i nes ( "U. S. S. G. " or

"Gui del i nes" ) . The i ssue bef or e us i s nar r ow, and so i s our

r ul i ng. Taki ng t hi s case j ust as i t has been pr esent ed t o us - -

meani ng we hol d the par t i es t o t hei r concessi ons and decl i ne to

specul ate on t he possi bl e mer i t of other argument s t hat mi ght have

been ( but wer en' t ) made - - we concl ude t hat Soto- Ri ver a' s

par t i cul ar cr i me of convi ct i on does not qual i f y as a "cr i me of

vi ol ence" under t he Gui del i nes. Accor di ngl y, Sot o- Ri ver a may not

be sent enced as a Career Of f ender .

BACKGROUND

The f act s, gener al l y speaki ng, ar e nei t her compl i cat ed

nor di sput ed. We r eci t e onl y t hose necessar y t o deci de t he i ssues

pr esent ed by t he par t i es.

For r easons not ger mane t o t he l egal i ssues her e, Soto-

Ri ver a f ound hi msel f under ar r est , and t he ar r est i ng of f i cer s f ound

a handgun and ammuni t i on i n hi s possessi on. Thi s was a pr obl em

f or hi m, as i t t ur ns out t hat Sot o- Ri ver a had a pr evi ous f el ony

convi ct i on on hi s r ecor d.

Sot o- Ri ver a soon f aced a t wo- count i ndi ct ment i n t he

Puer t o Ri co di st r i ct cour t . Count One char ged hi m wi t h i l l egal l y



- 3 -

possessi ng a "f i r ear m and ammuni t i on" i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.

§§ 922( g) ( 1) and 924( a) ( 2) , st at ut es whi ch make i t i l l egal f or

convi ct ed f el ons t o have guns or ammo. Count Two gave more det ai l

about Sot o- Ri ver a' s f i r ear m, descr i bi ng i t as a "machi negun, t hat

i s a Gl ock Model 23, . 40 cal i ber . . . modi f i ed t o shoot

aut omat i cal l y more t han one shot , wi t hout manual r el oadi ng, by a

si ngl e f unct i on of t he t r i gger , " whi ch vi ol at ed 18 U. S. C.

§§ 922( o) ' s and 924( a) ( 2) ' s gener al pr ohi bi t i on agai nst possessi ng

machi neguns. 1

Al t hough he ent er ed an i ni t i al pl ea of not gui l t y, r at her

t han st and t r i al Sot o- Ri ver a ent er ed i nt o a Pl ea Agr eement wi t h

t he gover nment . Pur suant t o t hei r Agr eement , Soto- Ri ver a agr eed

t o pl ead gui l t y t o Count One' s char ge of i l l egal l y possessi ng a

" f i r ear m and ammuni t i on, " wi t h Count Two f al l i ng by t he waysi de.

The Pl ea Agreement addr essed t he l engt h of t he pr i son

sent ence Sot o- Ri ver a coul d expect t o r ecei ve, somet hi ng t hat i s

heavi l y i nf l uenced by var i ous pr ovi si ons i n t he Sent enci ng

Gui del i nes. The now- advi sory Gui del i nes ar e "a syst em under whi ch

a set of i nput s speci f i c t o a gi ven case ( t he par t i cul ar

char act er i st i cs of t he of f ense and of f ender ) yi el d[ s] a

pr edetermi ned out put ( a range of mont hs wi t hi n whi ch t he def endant

1 The I ndi ct ment cont ai ned a separ at e count seeki ng f or f ei t ur eof t he Gl ock and ammuni t i on. Thi s f or f ei t ur e count al so descr i bedt he Gl ock as a "machi negun. "



- 4 -

coul d be sent enced) . " Peugh v. Uni t ed St at es, 133 S. Ct . 2072,

2079 ( 2013) . We commend t hose r eader s i nterest ed i n a gener al

over vi ew of how t he Gui del i nes work t o t he succi nct and i nf ormat i ve

r undown i n Uni t ed St ates v. Ser r ano- Mer cado, 784 F. 3d 838 (1st

Ci r . 2015) .

For our pur poses t oday, i t i s enough to know t hat t he

Gui del i nes t ake i nt o account any past cr i mes a def endant has been

convi ct ed of , wi t h t he i dea bei ng t hat " [ t ] he mor e sever e t he

cr i mi nal hi st or y, " t he l engt hi er t he sent ence. Ser r ano- Mer cado,

784 F. 3d at 840. A def endant who i s over 18 at t he t i me he commi t s

a "f el ony that i s ei t her a cri me of vi ol ence or a cont r ol l ed

subst ance of f ense, " and who "has at l east t wo pr i or f el ony

convi ct i ons of ei t her a cr i me of vi ol ence or a cont r ol l ed subst ance

of f ense, " i s a Car eer Of f ender . U. S. S. G. § 4B1. 1( a) . A Car eer

Of f ender i s consi der ed t o have t he most sever e cr i mi nal hi st or y

pr ovi ded by t he Gui del i nes. I d. § 4B1. 1( b) . The pr act i cal ef f ect

i s t hat a Car eer Of f ender gener al l y recei ves a l onger sent ence f or

a part i cul ar cr i me ( whi ch, r emember , must be ei t her a "cr i me of

vi ol ence" or a "cont r ol l ed subst ance of f ense" ) t han a non- Car eer

Of f ender woul d get f or t hat same cr i me.

So, t o f i gur e out whet her a par t i cul ar def endant i s a

Car eer Of f ender , i t ' s necessary t o know f i r st whet her t hat

def endant i s bei ng sent enced f ol l owi ng a convi ct i on f or a cr i me of

vi ol ence or a cont r ol l ed subst ance of f ense. I f he i s, t he next



- 5 -

quest i on t o answer i s whet her t hat def endant "has at l east t wo

pr i or f el ony convi ct i ons of ei t her a cr i me of vi ol ence or a

cont r ol l ed subst ance of f ense. " I d. § 4B1. 1( a) . Towar ds t hat end,

a def endant and t he government mi ght st i pul at e i n a pl ea agr eement

as t o whi ch ( and how many) cr i mes a def endant has commi t t ed i n the

past .

But t he Pl ea Agreement her e - - whi ch seems t o assume

t hat f el on i n possessi on i s a cri me of vi ol ence - - i s si l ent i n

t hat r egar d. I nst ead, Sot o- Ri ver a and t he gover nment cal cul at ed

pot ent i al sent ence l engt hs bot h wi t h and wi t hout consi der i ng hi m

t o be a Career Of f ender . The Pl ea Agr eement i ndi cates t hat Sot o-

Ri ver a f aced 77- 96 mont hs i n pr i son i f he was f ound to be a Career

Of f ender , and some short er amount of t i me i f he t ur ned out not t o

be one. 2

Fur t her , Soto- Ri ver a conceded i n t he Pl ea Agr eement t hat

t he government woul d have pr oven at t r i al t hat he had been caught

wi t h a f i r ear m "modi f i ed t o f i r e aut omat i cal l y, t hat i s, as a

machi ne gun. " He al so admi t t ed t hat he knew about t he Gl ock' s

modi f i cat i ons, and t hat he al r eady had a pr i or f el ony convi ct i on

on hi s recor d when he was caught wi t h t he gun. A di st r i ct j udge,

af t er quest i oni ng Sot o- Ri ver a at a change of pl ea hear i ng, accept ed

2 Accor di ng t o t he Agr eement , i f not a Car eer Of f ender , Sot o-Ri ver a' s sent enci ng range woul d be 51- 63 mont hs, 57- 71 mont hs, or70- 87 mont hs, dependi ng on hi s exact number of pr i or convi ct i ons.



- 6 -

hi s gui l t y pl ea af t er f i ndi ng i t t o be "knowi ng and vol unt ar y, " as

wel l as " suppor t ed by an i ndependent basi s i n f act . . . . "

When i t came t i me f or sent enci ng, Soto- Ri ver a di d not

obj ect t o bei ng cl assi f i ed as a Car eer Of f ender . I ndeed, wor ki ng

of f t he 77- 96 mont h Car eer Of f ender r ange t he part i es cal cul at ed

i n t he Pl ea Agr eement , hi s own at t orney asked f or a 77- mont h

sent ence. The gover nment went t he ot her way and asked f or a t op-

of - t he- r ange sent ence of 96 mont hs.

The sentenci ng j udge st at ed ( wi t hout obj ect i on) t hat t wo

of Sot o- Ri ver a' s past convi ct i ons wer e " f or t he manuf act ur e,

del i ver y or possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e or t o del i ver

cont r ol l ed subst ances[ , ] and conspi r acy t o do t hat . " I n t he

j udge' s vi ew, t hese t wo cr i mes wer e "cont r ol l ed subst ance

of f enses" count i ng t owar ds Car eer Of f ender st at us. The j udge t hen

st at ed i n concl usor y f ashi on t hat Sot o- Ri ver a' s l at est convi ct i on

f or f el on i n possessi on of a f i r ear m "i s consi der ed a cr i me of

vi ol ence. " Taki ng i nt o account Sot o- Ri ver a' s t wo pr i or cont r ol l ed

subst ance convi ct i ons, t he j udge announced he " i s consi der ed a

car eer of f ender . "

Fur t her , t hough t he par t i es had come up wi t h a Career

Of f ender r ange of 77 t o 96 mont hs, t he sent enci ng j udge' s



- 7 -

cal cul at i on di f f er ed. He pegged t he Gui del i nes r ange as bet ween

92 and 115 mont hs. 3

Taki ng i nt o account t he ci r cumst ances of t he cr i me and

Sot o- Ri ver a' s cr i mi nal hi st or y, t he sent enci ng j udge f ound t hat

t he par t i es' r ecommended Gui del i nes r ange ( 77- 96 mont hs) "does not

r ef l ect t he ser i ousness of t he of f ense, does not pr omot e r espect

f or t he l aw, does not pr ot ect t he publ i c f r om f ur t her cr i mes by

[ Sot o- Ri ver a] and does not addr ess t he i ssues of det er r ence and

puni shment . " I nst ead, t he sent enci ng j udge concl uded t hat t he

mi ddl e of t he 92- 155 mont h range he had cal cul at ed woul d be

appr opr i at e, and sent enced Sot o- Ri ver a t o 108 mont hs behi nd bars.

Thi s t i mel y appeal f ol l owed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Sot o- Ri ver a di d not obj ect t o t he di st r i ct cour t

t r eat i ng hi m as a Car eer Of f ender bef or e, at , or f ol l owi ng

sent enci ng. Yet t hi s i s exact l y t he i ssue he r ai ses on appeal , as

he says t hat he shoul dn' t have been sent enced as a Career Of f ender .

Usual l y, Sot o- Ri ver a' s f ai l ur e t o obj ect i n t he di str i ct

cour t woul d l ead us t o f i nd t he i ssue f or f ei t ed and we woul d r evi ew

f or pl ai n er r or onl y. But t he gover nment has decl i ned t o make a

3 Sot o- Ri ver a does not t ake i ssue wi t h t hi s r ange on appeal .I n f act , he says i t ' s t he par t i es who mi scal cul at ed t he Gui del i nesr ange i n thei r Pl ea Agr eement .



- 8 -

f or f ei t ur e ar gument . I n f act, at or al ar gument i t expl i ci t l y

cal l ed f or us t o appl y "de novo r evi ew. "

So, i n accordance wi t h our pr ecedent and the

gover nment ' s own r equest , we wi l l r evi ew t he i ssue as i f i t had

been pr oper l y pr eserved. See Uni t ed St at es v. Tapi a- Escal er a, 356

F. 3d 181, 183 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( decl i ni ng t o appl y pl ai n er r or

r evi ew t o a f or f ei t ed argument wher e t he gover nment f ai l ed t o

r equest pl ai n er r or r evi ew) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Paul i no-

Guzman, 807 F. 3d 447, 450 n. 5 (1st Ci r . 2015) ( r evi ewi ng the

subst ant i ve r easonabl eness of t he appel l ant ' s sent ence f or abuse

of di scr et i on, despi t e t he appel l ant ' s f or f ei t ur e of any obj ecti on

at t he di st r i ct cour t , because t he gover nment di d not seek pl ai n

er r or r evi ew on appeal ) .

"We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s i nt er pr et at i on and

appl i cat i on of t he sent enci ng gui del i nes de novo . . . . " Uni t ed

St at es v. Tavar es, 705 F. 3d 4, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Cor t és- Cabán, 691 F. 3d 1, 26 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ) . Sot o-

Ri ver a' s speci f i c chal l enge i s t o t he sent enci ng j udge' s

det er mi nat i on t hat he i s a Career Of f ender because t he cr i me t o

whi ch he pl eaded gui l t y - - f el on i n possessi on of a f i r ear m - - i s

a cr i me of vi ol ence wi t hi n t he meani ng of t he Gui del i nes. Fi gur i ng

out whet her t he Gui del i nes def i ne a par t i cul ar of f ense as a cr i me

of vi ol ence "poses a pur el y l egal quest i on, " so we r evi ew t hat



- 9 -

par t i cul ar i ssue de novo, t oo. Uni t ed St at es v. Vel ázquez, 777

F. 3d 91, 94 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) .

ANALYSIS

A.

Thi s appeal i s al l about Sot o- Ri ver a' s sentence, not hi s

convi ct i on. We must det er mi ne whet her bei ng a f el on i n possessi on

of a f i r ear m i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 1) i s a "cr i me of

vi ol ence" under t he Career Of f ender pr ovi si ons i n t he Gui del i nes. 4

Soto- Ri ver a says t hat , t hanks t o an opi ni on handed down by t he

Supr eme Cour t whi l e hi s appeal was pendi ng, J ohnson v. Uni t ed

St at es, 135 S. Ct . 2551 ( 2015) , hi s admi t t ed possessi on of a

gener i c " f i r ear m" does not const i t ut e a "cr i me of vi ol ence" under

t he Gui del i nes. 5 The gover nment , not sur pr i si ngl y, di sagr ees and

of f er s us a pat h t o af f i r mi ng t he sent ence.

4 As a r emi nder , t he Gui del i nes say t hat

[ a] def endant i s a car eer of f ender i f ( 1) t hedef endant was at l east ei ght een year s ol d att he t i me t he def endant commi t t ed t he i nst antof f ense of convi ct i on; ( 2) t he i nst ant of f enseof convi cti on i s a f el ony t hat i s ei t her acr i me of vi ol ence or a cont r ol l ed subst anceof f ense; and ( 3) t he def endant has at l eastt wo pr i or f el ony convi ct i ons of ei t her a cr i meof vi ol ence or a cont r ol l ed subst ance of f ense.

U. S. S. G. § 4B1. 1( a) . Sot o- Ri ver a makes no argument t hat he wasunder 18 at t he t i me he was caught wi t h hi s Gl ock.

5 Sot o- Ri ver a separ at el y asser t s t hat t her e was i nsuf f i ci entevi dence bef or e t he sent enci ng j udge t o est abl i sh t hat he hadal r eady been convi ct ed of t wo pr edi cate cr i mes, meani ng ei t her



- 10 -

But bef or e we can get i nt o t he speci f i cs of t he par t i es'

argument s, we need t o gi ve some detai l s about how t he Gui del i nes

def i ne a "cr i me of vi ol ence. " And we must l ook at exact l y what

Sot o- Ri ver a pl eaded gui l t y t o. Af t er doi ng t hi s we wi l l be abl e

t o unpack and consi der Soto- Ri ver a' s J ohnson- based argument s.

Accor di ng t o t he Gui del i nes,

[ t ] he t er m "cr i me of vi ol ence" means anyof f ense under f eder al or st at e l aw, puni shabl eby i mpr i sonment f or a t er mexceedi ng one year ,that - -

( 1) has as an el ement t he use, at t empted use,or t hr eat ened use of physi cal f or ce agai nstt he per son of anot her , or

( 2) i s bur gl ar y of a dwel l i ng, ar son, orext or t i on, i nvol ves use of expl osi ves, orot her wi se i nvol ves conduct t hat pr esent s aser i ous pot ent i al r i sk of physi cal i nj ur y t oanot her .

U. S. S. G. § 4B1. 2( a) ( emphasi s added) . The emphasi zed l anguage,

whi ch has come to be known as t he "r esi dual cl ause, " i s t he key t o

t hi s appeal .

Now, Sot o- Ri ver a pl ed gui l t y to possessi on of a f i r ear m

i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 1) . Thi s st at ut e st at es t hat

i t i s unl awf ul f or any per son "who has been convi ct ed i n any cour t

of , a cr i me puni shabl e by i mpr i sonment f or a t er m exceedi ng one

year [ , ] . . . t o . . . possess i n or af f ect i ng commer ce, any

cr i mes of vi ol ence or cont r ol l ed subst ance of f enses. We do notr each t hi s ar gument .



- 11 -

f i r ear m or ammuni t i on . . . . " 18 U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 1) . I f t hi s

cr i me i s not a cr i me of vi ol ence, i t woul d f ol l ow t hat Sot o- Ri ver a

may not be sent enced as a Car eer Of f ender .

B. Initial Arguments

I n hi s openi ng br i ef , Sot o- Ri ver a ar gues t hat bei ng a

f el on i n possessi on of a f i r ear m i s not an of f ense t hat cont ai ns

an el ement r equi r i ng t he use, at t empt ed use, or t hr eat of t he use

of physi cal f or ce agai nst another . And, seemi ngl y concedi ng t hat

a convi ct i on f or t he possessi on of a machi negun woul d qual i f y as

a cr i me of vi ol ence, Sot o- Ri ver a says t hat t hough "a post -

convi ct i on determi nat i on was made f i ndi ng t he gun t o be a ' machi ne

gun, ' " t he cr i me of whi ch he was act ual l y convi ct ed - - i l l egal

possessi on of a f i r ear m- - i s "not an of f ense i nvol vi ng a hazar dous

weapon. " Accordi ngl y, he argues t hat mer e possessi on of a gener i c

f i r ear m does not qual i f y as a cr i me of vi ol ence under t he r esi dual

cl ause because si mpl y possessi ng a f i r ear mdoes not pose a ser i ous

pot ent i al r i sk of i nj ur y t o anyone.

I n r ej oi nder , t he gover nment says t hat Sot o- Ri ver a' s

cr i me, al t hough i t doesn' t cont ai n t he use, at t empt ed use, or

t hr eat ened use of f or ce as an el ement , never t hel ess i nvol ves

conduct t hat pr esent s a ser i ous pot ent i al r i sk of physi cal i nj ur y

t o anot her gi ven t hat Sot o- Ri ver a' s f i r ear mwas a machi negun. The

gover nment , t her ef or e, ur ges us t o f i nd t hat Sot o- Ri ver a' s of f ense



- 12 -

of convi ct i on f al l s wi t hi n t he r esi dual cl ause' s r at her expansi ve

def i ni t i on of a cri me of vi ol ence.

C. Post-Johnson Briefing

Af t er t he par t i es' br i ef s came i n, t he Supr eme Cour t

deci ded J ohnson v. Uni t ed St at es, 135 S. Ct . 2551 ( 2015) . J ohnson

i nvol ved a voi d- f or - vagueness chal l enge t o t he f eder al Ar med

Car eer Cr i mi nal Act ( "ACCA" ) , whi ch, l i ke t he Gui del i nes, pr ovi des

f or l engt hi er sent ences f or cer t ai n def endant s based on t hei r

cri mi nal hi st or i es. I n t hi s r egar d, t he ACCA cont ai ns a r esi dual

cl ause t hat i s al most i dent i cal t o t he one f ound i n t he Gui del i nes.

See i d. at 2555- 56 ( r ecogni zi ng t he ACCA' s " r esi dual cl ause"

i ncl udes any f el ony t hat " ' i nvol ves conduct t hat pr esent s a ser i ous

pot ent i al r i sk of physi cal i nj ur y t o anot her ' " ( quot i ng 18 U. S. C.

§ 924( e) ( 2) ( B) ) ) . The J ohnson Cour t ul t i mat el y hel d t hat t he

ACCA' s r esi dual cl ause i s voi d f or vagueness and t hat " [ i ] ncr easi ng

a def endant ' s sent ence under t he cl ause deni es due pr ocess of l aw. "

I d. at 2557. 6

We af f or ded the par t i es an opport uni t y t o submi t

suppl ement al br i ef s addr essi ng J ohnson' s ef f ect , i f any, on t hi s

appeal . Sot o- Ri ver a ar gued t hat J ohnson' s r easoni ng appl i es

equal l y t o t he Gui del i nes, r ender i ng t he Gui del i nes' s r esi dual

6 As wi l l be made cl ear , t he reasoni ng l eadi ng t o t he Supr emeCour t ' s hol di ng i s of no par t i cul ar i mpor t i n t hi s appeal . Theonl y thi ng t hat mat t er s f or t oday' s anal ysi s i s t hat t he Supr emeCour t i nval i dat ed t he ACCA' s r esi dual cl ause.



- 13 -

cl ause unconst i t ut i onal l y vague and i nval i d as wel l . And si nce he

was f ound t o be a Car eer Of f ender by vi r t ue of t hat r esi dual

cl ause, Sot o- Ri ver a tel l s us hi s sent ence cannot st and.

I n i t s suppl ement al br i ef , t he gover nment sai d i t

"acknowl edge[ d] " t hat t he Gui del i nes' s r esi dual cl ause "i s

unconst i t ut i onal l y vague based on J ohnson, " and so i t "no l onger

hol ds t he posi t i on t hat [ Sot o- Ri ver a' s sent ence] shoul d be

af f i r med" based on t he r esi dual cl ause. Thus, f or pur poses of

t hi s appeal , t he gover nment concedes t hat i t vi ol at es due pr ocess

t o ut i l i ze t he Gui del i nes' s r esi dual cl ause t o cl assi f y a def endant

as a Career Of f ender and t hereby i mpose a l onger sent ence.

Never t hel ess, t he gover nment says we may af f i r m Soto-

Ri ver a' s sent ence even wi t hout t he r esi dual cl ause. We can do

t hi s, i t says, because t he r esi dual cl ause i s not t he onl y r out e

l eadi ng t o sent enci ng Sot o- Ri ver a as a Car eer Of f ender . Accor di ng

t o t he gover nment , we may rel y on comment ary expl ai ni ng and f ur t her

expandi ng upon U. S. S. G. § 4B1. 2' s def i ni t i on of "cr i me of

vi ol ence. " 7

7 Gui del i nes comment ary, t he Supreme Cour t has expl ai ned, "mayserve t hese f unct i ons: comment ar y may ' i nt er pr et [ a] gui del i ne orexpl ai n how i t i s t o be appl i ed, ' ' suggest ci r cumst anceswhi ch . . . may war r ant depar t ur e f r omt he gui del i nes, ' or ' pr ovi debackgr ound i nf or mat i on, i ncl udi ng f act or s consi der ed i npr omul gat i ng t he gui del i ne or r easons under l yi ng pr omul gat i on oft he gui del i ne. ' " St i nson v. Uni t ed St at es, 508 U. S. 36, 41 ( 1993)( quot i ng U. S. S. G. § 1B1. 7) .



- 14 -

Speci f i cal l y, Appl i cat i on Not e 1 t o § 4B1. 2 st at es t hat

"' [ c] r i me of vi ol ence' does not i ncl ude t he of f ense of unl awf ul

possessi on of a f i r ear m by a f el on, unl ess t he possessi on was of

a f i r ear m descri bed i n 26 U. S. C. § 5845( a) . " U. S. S. G. § 4B1. 2,

Appl i cat i on Not e 1. The r ef er enced st at ut e, § 5845( a) , pr ovi des

var i ous def i ni t i ons of t he t er m "f i r ear m, " and i t expl i ci t l y

i ncl udes "machi negun[ s] " wi t hi n t he wor d' s meani ng. 26 U. S. C.

§ 5845( a) ( 6) . Because Soto- Ri ver a admi t s t hat he possessed a

machi negun, and because § 5845( a) ( 6) cl ear l y r ef er s t o

"machi neguns, " Appl i cat i on Not e 1, t her ef or e, pr ovi des a basi s

compl et el y i ndependent of t he r esi dual cl ause f or appl yi ng t he

Career Of f ender enhancement . Or so t he gover nment ' s ar gument goes.

D. Discussion

Fi r st t hi ngs f i r st . Based on t he gover nment ' s

concessi on t hat J ohnson' s r easoni ng appl i es j ust as wel l t o t he

Gui del i nes as t o t he ACCA - - t he cor r ect ness of whi ch we do not

consi der - - we f i nd t hat Sot o- Ri ver a' s Car eer Of f ender st at us may

not be pr edi cat ed upon t he Gui del i nes' s r esi dual cl ause. 8 I n ot her

8 We have yet t o deci de whether J ohnson r enders t he resi dualcl ause i n t he Gui del i nes unconst i t ut i onal as wel l . See Uni t edSt at es v. Cast r o- Vazquez, 802 F. 3d 28, 38- 39 ( 1st Ci r . 2015)( expr essl y decl i ni ng t o addr ess t he i ssue) . Gi ven t hat t hegover nment has expl i ci t l y wai ved any r el i ance on i t her e, t hi s i snot t he case f or us t o opi ne on t he i ssue ei t her . Mor eover , on J anuar y 8, 2016, t he Sent enci ng Commi ssi on adopt ed a prel i mi naryamendment t o U. S. S. G. § 4B1. 2 ( "Prel i mi nary Amendment " ) t hatdel etes t he r esi dual cl ause. See Amendment t o t he Sent enci ngGui del i nes ( Pr el i mi nar y) ( J an. 8, 2016) ( avai l abl e at



- 15 -

wor ds, we may not r el y on t he r esi dual cl ause t o f i nd t hat f el on

i n possessi on of a f i r ear m i s a cri me of vi ol ence.

Wi t h t he r esi dual cl ause out of t he pi ct ur e, t he

gover nment i s whol l y rel i ant upon Gui del i nes comment ary - - t he

above- descr i bed Appl i cat i on Not e 1 t o § 4B1. 2 - - t o suppor t i t s

posi t i on. The gover nment di r ect s our at t ent i on t o t he Supr eme

Cour t ' s t eachi ng t hat comment ar y " i nt er pr et [ i ng] or expl ai n[ i ng]

a [ G] ui del i ne i s aut hor i t at i ve unl ess i t vi ol at es t he Const i t ut i on

or a f eder al st at ut e, or i s i nconsi st ent wi t h, or a pl ai nl y

er r oneous r eadi ng of , t hat [ G] ui del i ne. " St i nson v. Uni t ed St at es,

508 U. S. 36, 38 ( 1993) . The i mpl i cat i on i s t hat because

Appl i cat i on Not e 1 i ncl udes possessi on of a machi negun as a "cr i me

of vi ol ence, " and si nce Sot o- Ri ver a admi t t ed t hat hi s modi f i ed

Gl ock was a machi negun, Appl i cat i on Not e 1 compel s t he concl usi on

t hat Sot o- Ri ver a pl ed gui l t y t o a cr i me of vi ol ence.

But t he gover nment f ai l s t o anal yze whet her Appl i cat i on

Not e 1 has become i nconsi st ent wi t h i t s cor r espondi ng Gui del i ne i f

J ohnson di ct at es t hat we exci se t he r esi dual cl ause. 9 Thi s i s a

ht t p: / / www. ussc. gov/ si t es/ def aul t / f i l es/ pdf / amendment -pr ocess/ r eader - f r i endl y- amendment s/ 20160108_RF. pdf ( l ast accessed J anuar y 20, 2016) ) . The Pr el i mi nary Amendment , however , i s notschedul ed t o go i nt o ef f ect unt i l August 1, 2016.

9 The gover nment al so seemi ngl y f ai l s t o r ecogni ze t hat , whi l et he Gui del i nes were bi ndi ng on t he Cour t s when St i nson was deci ded,see St i nson, 508 U. S. at 42, t hi s i s no l onger t he case, see Uni t edSt at es v. Booker , 543 U. S. 220, 245 ( 2005) ( hol di ng t hat t heGui del i nes must be "ef f ect i vel y advi sor y" i n or der t o sur vi ve a



- 16 -

si gni f i cant over si ght because ( as Sot o- Ri ver a poi nt s out )

" [ G] ui del i ne comment ary i s not al ways t o be t aken as gospel . "

Uni t ed St at es v. Mel éndez- Ri ver a, 782 F. 3d 26, 30 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) .

" [ W] her e comment ar y i s i nconsi st ent wi t h [ Gui del i nes] t ext , t ext

cont r ol s. " Uni t ed St at es v. Shel l , 789 F. 3d 335, 340 ( 4t h Ci r .

2015) ( ci t i ng St i nson, 508 U. S. at 43) . See al so St i nson, 508

U. S. at 43 ( expl ai ni ng t hat i f "comment ar y and t he gui del i ne i t

i nt er pr et s ar e i nconsi st ent i n t hat f ol l owi ng one wi l l r esul t i n

vi ol at i ng t he di ct at es of t he ot her , t he Sent enci ng Ref or m Act

i t sel f commands compl i ance wi t h t he gui del i ne" r at her t han t he

comment ar y ( ci t i ng 18 U. S. C. §§ 3553( a) ( 4) , ( b) ) ) .

The gover nment ' s ar gument r equi r es us t o l ook back at

t he appl i cabl e Gui del i ne, U. S. S. G. § 4B1. 2( a) , and consi der

whet her or not Appl i cat i on Not e 1 i s consi st ent wi t h § 4B1. 2( a) ' s

t ext i n t he absence of t he r esi dual cl ause. Exci si ng t he cl ause

f r om § 4B1. 2( a) l eaves us wi t h a def i ni t i on of "cr i me of vi ol ence"

t hat l ooks l i ke t hi s :

The t er m"cr i me of vi ol ence" means any of f enseunder f eder al or st at e l aw, puni shabl e by

const i t ut i onal chal l enge) . Today, cour t s ar e t o "gi ve ' r espect f ulconsi der at i on' t o t he now- advi sor y Gui del i nes ( and thei raccompanyi ng pol i cy st atement s) , " Pepper v. Uni t ed St ates, 562U. S. 476, 501 ( 2011) ( quot i ng Ki mbr ough v. Uni t ed St ates, 552 U. S.85, 101 ( 2007) ) , but "may i n appr opr i at e cases i mpose a non-Gui del i nes sent ence, " i d. ( ci t i ng Ki mbr ough, 552 U. S. at 109- 10) .Because t he gover nment ' s posi t i on f ai l s on i t s own t er ms ( i . e. ,even i f we assume arguendo t hat comment ary i s bi ndi ng) , we neednot anal yze t he pr oper r ol e of Gui del i nes comment ary af t er Booker .



- 17 -

i mpr i sonment f or a t er m exceedi ng one year ,that - -

( 1) has as an el ement t he use, at t empted use,or t hr eat ened use of physi cal f or ce agai nst

t he per son of anot her , or( 2) i s bur gl ar y of a dwel l i ng, ar son, orext or t i on, [ or ] i nvol ves use of expl osi ves.

Wi t h § 4B1. 2( a) st r i pped of i t s r esi dual cl ause, t he

gover nment ' s posi t i on t hat we may r el y on Appl i cat i on Note 1 t o

uphol d Sot o- Ri ver a' s desi gnat i on as a Car eer Of f ender i s hopel ess.

I n or der t o qual i f y, Sot o- Ri ver a woul d have had t o have pl ed gui l t y

t o commi t t i ng a "cr i me of vi ol ence. " But , Sot o- Ri ver a di d not hi ng

more t han admi t t o mere possessi on of a machi negun. Pass i ve

possessi on of a f i r ear m ( even one as pot ent i al l y danger ous as a

machi negun) i s not a cr i me t hat i ncl udes - - as an el ement t hat

must be proved by t he gover nment - - t he use, at t empted use, or

t hr eat ened use of physi cal f or ce. The l ack of such an el ement

means t hat i t does not const i t ut e a cr i me of vi ol ence under

U. S. S. G. § 4B1. 2( a) ( 1) . Mor eover , such possessi on i s cl ear l y not

one of t hose speci f i cal l y- enumer at ed cr i mes l i st ed i n U. S. S. G.

§ 4B1. 2( a) ( 2) . Thus, i n t he absence of t he r esi dual cl ause, t her e

i s not hi ng wi t hi n § 4B1. 2( a) ' s t ext t o ser ve as an anchor f or

Appl i cat i on Not e 1' s i ncl usi on of possessi on of a machi negun wi t hi n

t he def i ni t i on of cri me of vi ol ence.

Thi s l eaves t he gover nment wi t h i t s ar gument t hat we may

ut i l i ze Appl i cat i on Not e 1 as an i ndependent basi s f or a f i ndi ng



- 18 -

of Car eer Of f ender st at us. Yet , doi ng so woul d be i nconsi st ent

wi t h t he post - J ohnson t ext of t he Gui del i ne i t sel f . By i t s cl ear

l anguage, once shor n of t he r esi dual cl ause § 4B1. 2( a) set s f or t h

a l i mi t ed uni ver se of speci f i c of f enses t hat qual i f y as a "cr i me

of vi ol ence. " Ther e i s si mpl y no mechani sm or t ext ual hook i n t he

Gui del i ne t hat al l ows us t o i mpor t of f enses not speci f i cal l y l i st ed

t her ei n i nt o § 4B1. 2( a) ' s def i ni t i on of "cr i me of vi ol ence. " Wi t h

no such pat h avai l abl e t o us, doi ng so woul d be i nconsi st ent wi t h

t he t ext of t he Gui del i ne. Accor di ngl y, we f i nd our sel ves i n one

of t hose si t uat i ons i n whi ch Gui del i nes comment ary shoul d not be

" t aken as gospel , " Mel éndez- Ri ver a, 782 F. 3d at 30, and we rej ect

t he gover nment ' s at t empt t o make use of U. S. S. G. § 4B1. 2( a) ' s

Appl i cat i on Not e 1 t o expand upon t he l i st of of f enses t hat qual i f y

f or Car eer Of f ender st at us.

Fi nal l y, t he gover nment ' s r el i ance on an unpubl i shed

opi ni on f r om a si st er ci r cui t , Beckl es v. Uni t ed St at es, 616 F.

App' x 415 ( 11t h Ci r . 2015) ( unpubl i shed) , i s unavai l i ng. Tr ue

enough, Beckl es was deci ded post - J ohnson and determi ned t hat

unl awf ul possessi on of a sawed- of f shotgun cont i nues t o count as

a cr i me of vi ol ence. Beckl es, 616 F. App' x at 416. J ohnson,

Beckl es concl uded, di d not bar t hi s r esul t because " J ohnson says

and deci ded not hi ng about career - of f ender enhancement s under t he

Sent enci ng Gui del i nes or about t he Gui del i nes comment ary

under l yi ng Beckl es' s st at us as a car eer - of f ender . " I d.



- 19 -

Af t er l i mi t i ng J ohnson t o sent ences i mposed under t he

ACCA, Beckl es t ur ned t o t he Gui del i nes and expl i ci t l y rel i ed on

U. S. S. G. § 4B1. 2' s Appl i cat i on Not e 1 ( whi ch, as we sai d, i s t i ed

t o t he r esi dual cl ause) t o concl ude t hat possessi on of a sawed-

of f shot gun const i t ut es a cr i me of vi ol ence. To r each t hi s

concl usi on, Beckl es ci t ed and r el i ed on ci r cui t pr ecedent , Uni t ed

St at es v. Hal l , 714 F. 3d 1270 ( 11t h Ci r . 2013) , f or t he pr oposi t i on

t hat " t he Gui del i nes comment ar y i n U. S. S. G. § 4B1. 2 i s bi ndi ng

and, t hus, . . . possessi on of a sawed- of f shot gun qual i f i es as a

' cri me of vi ol ence. ' " I d. at 416 ( ci t i ng Hal l , 714 F. 3d at 1274) .

I n t he pr e- J ohnson Hal l case, t he El event h Ci r cui t was

"asked t o deci de whet her an of f ense [ i . e. , possessi on of a sawed-

of f shot gun] qual i f i es as a ' cr i me of vi ol ence' under t he

[ Gui del i nes' s] r esi dual cl ause. " Hal l , 714 F. 3d at 1273 ( emphasi s

added) . Thus, Hal l det er mi ned t hat , t hanks t o t he Gui del i nes' s

r esi dual cl ause, possessi on of a sawed- of f shot gun i s a cr i me of

vi ol ence because i t " i nvol ve[ s] conduct t hat pr esent s a ser i ous

pot ent i al r i sk of physi cal i nj ur y t o anot her . " See i d. at 1274.

I t i s evi dent , t hen, t hat af t er r ej ect i ng t he not i on t hat J ohnson

i s cont r ol l i ng, Beckl es di d no mor e t han r eaf f i r m Hal l . Beckl es,

616 F. App' x at 416 ( "Our deci si on i n Hal l r emai ns good l aw and

cont i nues t o cont r ol i n t hi s appeal . ") .

We need not opi ne as t o whet her we bel i eve Beckl es was

cor r ect l y deci ded. Thi s i s because t he gover nment has expr essl y



- 20 -

conceded t hat J ohnson i nval i dat ed t he r esi dual cl ause i n t he

Gui del i nes. Si nce Beckl es ( l i ke Hal l bef or e i t ) was gr ounded i n

t he ver y l anguage whi ch t he gover nment i t sel f now says must be

exci sed f r omt he Gui del i nes, Beckl es' s r easoni ng and r at i onal e ar e

i napposi t e her e. Thus, t he El event h Ci r cui t ' s opi ni on pr ovi des no

comf or t f or t he government . 10

E. Recap

I n sum, t he government ' s argument s t hat we may af f i r m

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ng t hat Sot o- Ri ver a pl eaded gui l t y t o a

cr i me of vi ol ence f ai l . We agr ee wi t h Sot o- Ri ver a t hat , i n t he

absence of t he r esi dual cl ause, t her e i s no t ext ual hook i n

Gui del i nes § 4B1. 2( a) t o al l ow f or t he concl usi on t hat hi s

possessi on of a f i r ear m const i t ut ed a cri me of vi ol ence. I t

f ol l ows t hat t he Gui del i nes' s Car eer Of f ender pr ovi si ons do not

appl y, and t hat Sot o- Ri ver a shoul d not have been sent enced as a

Career Of f ender . Accor di ngl y, we must vacat e t he sent ence and

10 Though not ci t ed by t he government , t he El event h Ci r cui thas i ssued a publ i shed opi ni on deal i ng wi t h t hi s t opi c. I n Uni t edSt at es v. Mat chet t , 802 F. 3d 1185, 1189 ( 11t h Ci r . 2015) , oursi st er ci r cui t concl uded t hat t he now- advi sor y Gui del i nes( i ncl udi ng t hei r r esi dual cl ause) cannot be unconst i t ut i onal l yvague because t he voi d- f or - vagueness doct r i ne cent r al t o J ohnson"appl i es onl y to l aws t hat pr ohi bi t conduct and f i x puni shment s,not advi sor y gui del i nes. " We have no need t o consi der t he El event hCi r cui t ' s r easoni ng ( whi ch appear s wel l on i t s way t o becomi ng ami nor i t y vi ew, see not e 12, i nf r a) i n l i ght of t he gover nment ' sconcessi on as t o t he unavai l abi l i t y of t he r esi dual cl ause.



- 21 -

r emand f or Soto- Ri ver a t o be r esent enced wi t hout bei ng subj ect t o

t he Gui del i nes' s Car eer Of f ender pr ovi si ons. 11

As we sai d at t he out set , our r ul i ng i s nar r ow. We hol d

onl y t hat , i n l i ght of t he gover nment ' s concessi on t hat J ohnson

i nval i dat es t he r esi dual cl ause i n Gui del i nes § 4B1. 2( a) ( 2) ,

Appl i cat i on Note 1 has become i nconsi st ent wi t h t he r emai ni ng t ext

of t he Gui del i ne i t sel f . Ther ef or e, t he comment ar y pr ovi des no

basi s f or us t o concl ude t hat Sot o- Ri ver a' s cr i me of convi ct i on,

f el on i n possessi on of a f i r ear m, f al l s wi t hi n § 4B1. 2( a) ( 2) ' s

def i ni t i on of " cr i me of vi ol ence. " The cor r ect ness of t he

gover nment ' s concessi on as t o J ohnson' s i mpact on t he Gui del i nes

i s somet hi ng we need not and do not consi der her e. 12 See Evans-

11 We recogni ze t hat t he Sent enci ng Commi ssi on' s Prel i mi naryAmendment di scussed i n not e 8, supr a, does more t han j ust del ete

t he r esi dual cl ause. I t amends U. S. S. G. § 4B1. 2( a) ( 2) t o i ncl ude"unl awf ul possessi on of a f i r ear m descri bed i n 26 U. S. C.§ 5845( a) " - - t hat woul d i ncl ude a machi negun - - wi t hi n t he meani ngof "cr i me of vi ol ence. "

Even i f we make t he t wo- part assumpt i on t hat t he Pr el i mi naryAmendment becomes ef f ect i ve as- draf t ed on August 1, 2016, and thatt he new t ext pr ovi des a basi s f or concl udi ng t hat f el on i npossessi on of a f i r ear m may const i t ut e a cr i me of vi ol ence i n atl east some ci r cumst ances, i t st i l l woul d not be cl ear t hat t hePr el i mi nary Amendment woul d j ust i f y i ncr easi ng Sot o- Ri ver a' ssent ence. Af t er al l , t he Supr eme Cour t has cl ear l y hel d t hat" t her e i s an ex post f act o vi ol at i on when a def endant i s sent encedunder Gui del i nes pr omul gated af t er he commi t t ed hi s cr i mi nal act sand t he new ver si on pr ovi des a hi gher appl i cabl e Gui del i nessent enci ng r ange t han t he ver si on i n pl ace at t he t i me of t heof f ense. " Peugh, 133 S. Ct . at 2078.

12 I ndeed, our cour t has yet t o wei gh i n on t hi s t opi c, seeCast r o- Vazquez, 802 F. 3d at 38 ( "We do not deci de whether t he



Gar cí a v. Uni t ed St at es, 744 F. 3d 235, 239 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( "Thi s

i s not t o say t hat a gover nment concessi on necessar i l y resul t s i n

an opi ni on adopt i ng t he conceded posi t i on. " ) ; see al so i d. at 237-

38 ( "We gener al l y do not r ul e on quest i ons - - whet her of f act or

of l aw - - unt i l a di st r i ct cour t has done so . . . . " ) .

CONCLUSION

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, Sot o- Ri ver a' s sent ence i s

her eby vacated and t hi s mat t er i s remanded t o t he di str i ct cour t

f or r esent enci ng consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on.

r esi dual cl ause of t he [ G] ui del i nes f ai l s under J ohnson. ") , andt hi s case does not pr ovi de a vehi cl e f or doi ng so i n l i ght of t hegover nment ' s concessi on. I n addi t i on t o not i ng t he pr oposeddel et i on of t he r esi dual cl ause, we al so poi nt out t hat sever alot her ci r cui t s have ei t her concl uded or i mpl i ed t hat J ohnsoni nval i dat ed i t . See Uni t ed St at es v. Madr i d, 805 F. 3d 1204, 1210-11 ( 10t h Ci r . 2015) ( hol di ng t he r esi dual cl ause i n t he Gui del i nesunconst i t ut i onal i n l i ght of J ohnson) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Tayl or ,803 F. 3d 931, 933 ( 8t h Ci r . 2015) ( per cur i am) ( r emandi ng f or t hedi st r i ct cour t t o anal yze J ohnson' s i mpact on t he Gui del i nes i nt he f i r st i nst ance, but r ecogni zi ng t hat "[ a] l t hough t he[ G] ui del i nes ar e not st at ut es, di st r i ct cour t s must consi dert hem, " and so t he not i on " t hat t he [G] ui del i nes cannot beunconst i t ut i onal l y vague because they do not pr oscr i be conduct i sdoubt f ul af t er J ohnson") ; Uni t ed St at es v. Har bi n, 610 F. App' x562, 562- 63 ( 6t h Ci r . 2015) ( per cur i am) ( st at i ng t hat t heappel l ant , whose sent ence had been enhanced under t he Gui del i nes' sCar eer Of f ender pr ovi si ons, i s "ent i t l ed t o t he same r el i ef asof f enders sent enced under t he r esi dual cl ause of t he ACCA" post - J ohnson, and r emandi ng f or r esentenci ng) .

united states v. soto-rivera, 1st cir. (2016)

Documents