United States v. Carter, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 United States v. Carter, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/29

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1499

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

WAYNE CARTER,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. Geor ge Z. Si ngal , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Dyk* and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

J . Hi l ar y Bi l l i ngs, Assi st ant Feder al Def ender , f or appel l ant .Rene M. Bunker , Ass i st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h whom

Thomas E. Del ahant y I I , Uni t ed Stat es At t or ney, wer e on br i ef f orappel l ee.

Apr i l 30, 2014

* Of t he Feder al Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/29

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Thi s cr i mi nal case comes t o us

on di r ect appeal f r om a f i nal j udgment ent er ed agai nst Def endant -

Appel l ant Wayne Car t er ( "Car t er " ) by t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct

Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of Mai ne. Car t er was char ged i n a one- count

i ndi ct ment wi t h possessi ng a f i r ear m f ol l owi ng a pr i or convi ct i on

of a mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence, i n vi ol at i on of 18

U. S. C. 922( g) ( 9) and 924( a) . Af t er Car t er condi t i onal l y pl eaded

gui l t y and r eser ved hi s r i ght t o appeal , t he di st r i ct cour t

sentenced hi m t o be i mpr i soned f or t wel ve mont hs and one day. The

execut i on of hi s sent ence was st ayed pendi ng t he resol ut i on of t hi s

appeal .

Car t er r ai ses t hr ee cl ai ms on appeal . Fi r st , he r ai ses

a const i t ut i onal chal l enge, ar gui ng t hat under t he Supr eme Cour t ' s

deci si on i n Di st r i ct of Col umbi a v. Hel l er , 554 U. S. 570 ( 2008) ,

t he gover nment f ai l ed t o demonst r at e a " r easonabl y cl ose f i t "

bet ween t he pur pose of t he rest r i ct i on ( r educi ng the f r equency of

deat hs resul t i ng f r omdomest i c vi ol ence) and t he r est r i ct i on i t sel f

( i n hi s wor ds, "per manent l y di spossessi ng non- vi ol ent domest i c

mi sdemeanants of t hei r Second Amendment r i ght s" ) .

Second, he br i ngs a st at ut or y cl ai m, ar gui ng t hat

commi ssi on of si mpl e assaul t by r eckl essl y causi ng of f ensi ve

physi cal cont act does not const i t ut e t he "use or at t empt ed use of

physi cal f or ce" as r equi r ed t o qual i f y as a "mi sdemeanor cr i me of

-2-


3/29

domest i c vi ol ence, " and t hus hi s pr i or convi ct i on cannot serve as

a val i d pr edi cat e of f ense f or pur poses of 922( g) ( 9) .

Thi r d, Car t er ar gues t hat under an except i on t o t he

r el evant sent enci ng gui del i ne, he was ent i t l ed t o a l esser sent ence

because he possessed t he f i r ear m "sol el y f or l awf ul spor t i ng

pur poses or col l ect i on. " See Uni t ed St ates Sent enci ng Commi ssi on,

Gui del i nes Manual , 2K2. 1( b) ( 2) ( Nov. 2011) ( "USSG") .

We hol d t hat Car t er ' s const i t ut i onal cl ai mi s f or ecl osed

by bi ndi ng pr ecedent t o t he cont r ary, but t hat t here may be some

mer i t t o hi s st at ut or y ar gument i n l i ght of t he Supr eme Cour t ' s

r ecent deci si on i n Uni t ed St at es v. Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . 1405

( 2014) . Fi ndi ng t hat t he r ecor d i s i nsuf f i ci ent l y devel oped on

t hi s i ssue, we vacat e Car t er ' s convi ct i on and t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

deni al of hi s ori gi nal mot i on t o di smi ss t he i ndi ct ment , and we

r emand t he case f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s

opi ni on. Accor di ngl y, we do not r each Car t er ' s ar gument s regar di ng

t he appl i cat i on of t he r el evant sent enci ng gui del i nes.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

On March 20, 2010, Car t er pawned a r i f l e at t he Wal doboro

Tr adi ng Post i n Wal dobor o, Mai ne i n exchange f or a l oan. Af t er

r epayi ng t he l oan, he at t empt ed t o col l ect t he r i f l e on Apr i l 16,

2010. I n or der t o r et ake possessi on, he compl et ed a r ecor ds check

f or m r equi r ed by t he Bur eau of Al cohol , Tobacco, Fi r ear ms, and

-3-


4/29

Expl osi ves ( "ATF") . The r et ur n of t he r i f l e was deni ed due t o t he

r esul t s of t he r ecor ds check, whi ch i ndi cat ed t hat Car t er had pr i or

cr i mi nal convi ct i ons. 1

Fur t her i nvest i gat i on r eveal ed, among ot her t hi ngs, t hat

i n 1997 Cart er had been convi ct ed of a mi sdemeanor assaul t i n

Mai ne. Pol i ce r ecor ds of t he of f ense showed t hat on Febr uar y 24,

1997, a pol i ce of f i cer was cal l ed t o Car t er ' s home, wher e he l i ved

wi t h hi s gi r l f r i end, Anni e Eagan ( "Eagan") , and her t wo chi l dr en

( at t he t i me, one daught er was t en years ol d and t he ot her daught er

was f our mont hs ol d) . Eagan t ol d t he of f i cer t hat Car t er had spi t

i n her f ace and shoved her on her r i ght shoul der ; her account was

cor r obor ated by her t en- year - ol d daught er . Eagan sai d t hat she was

not hur t , di d not want Car t er ar r est ed, and di d not want t o pr ess

char ges; she onl y want ed hi mr emoved f r omt he house. Accor di ng t o

t he pol i ce repor t , Eagan r ecount ed t hat Car t er had st r uck her

bef or e "her e and t her e. " The r espondi ng of f i cer not ed t hat t hi s

was t he second t i me t hat she was cal l ed t o t he home t o have Car t er

r emoved.

1 The pr esent ence i nvest i gat i on r epor t ( "PSR") and r evi sed PSRpr epar ed by the U. S. Pr obat i on Of f i cer l at er ci t ed t went y- t wo adul t

cr i mi nal convi ct i ons, begi nni ng when Car t er was 18 year s ol d i n1984 and ext endi ng thr ough the age of 45 at t he t i me t he repor t waspr epar ed i n 2010. These i ncl uded convi ct i ons f or : di sor der l yconduct , cri mi nal mi schi ef , assaul t s, vi ol at i ng pr ot ect i ve or der s,pr obat i on vi ol at i ons, t hef t , oper at i ng under t he i nf l uence, dr i vi ngt o endanger , i ndecent conduct , mar i j uana possessi on, and unl awf uldr ug t r af f i cki ng.

-4-


5/29

I n an I nf or mat i on dat ed Apr i l 1, 1997, t he Mai ne st at e

pr osecut or char ged t hat "Wayne Car t er di d i nt ent i onal l y, knowi ngl y

or r eckl essl y cause bodi l y i nj ur y or of f ensi ve physi cal cont act t o

Angi e Eagan, " i n vi ol at i on of t he Mai ne gener al - pur pose assaul t

st at ut e. See Me. Rev. St at . t i t . 17- A, 207. Car t er pl eaded

gui l t y i n Knox Count y Super i or Cour t i n Rockl and, Mai ne, and t he

cour t adj udged hi m gui l t y as char ged and convi ct ed. The cour t

sent enced hi m t o ser ve t hi r t y days i n t he Knox Count y J ai l .

On Apr i l 30, 2010, ATF agent s went t o Cart er ' s home,

wher e t hey i nt er vi ewed hi m r egar di ng hi s at t empt t o col l ect t he

pawned f i r ear m. Car t er admi t t ed t hat he r ecal l ed hi s pr evi ous

convi ct i on f or assaul t i ng Eagan.

As t he i nvest i gat i on cont i nued, t he pawn shop' s r ecor ds

al so r eveal ed t hat Car t er had pawned and redeemed t hr ee separ ate

r i f l es on mul t i pl e occasi ons bet ween 2007 and 2010. I n t ot al , he

pawned a f i r ear m t en t i mes dur i ng t hi s per i od. 2

2 The t r ansact i on t hat prompt ed t hi s i nvest i gat i on i nvol ved aRuger - br and "Mi ni - 14 Ranch Ri f l e" ; Car t er pawned t hi s r i f l e a t ot alof f i ve t i mes between 2008 and 2010. Car t er al so pawned andr edeemed a Remi ngt on- br and, "Model 700, " . 270 cal i ber r i f l e ont hr ee occasi ons bet ween 2007 and 2009. Fi nal l y, Car t er t wi ce

pawned and r edeemed a Remi ngt on- brand, "Model 760 Gamemast er , " . 35cal i ber r i f l e. Car t er i nher i t ed t he weapons f ol l owi ng hi s f at her ' sdeat h i n 2006. The f i r ear ms wer e kept i n a l ocked cabi net at hi smot her ' s house, and Car t er onl y physi cal l y possessed t he r i f l es i nconnect i on wi t h pawni ng t hem. He had not hunted si nce 2000, and hedi d not di schar ge any of t he f i r ear ms or engage i n t ar get shoot i ngdur i ng hi s owner shi p of t he r i f l es.

-5-


6/29

B. Procedural Background

On Sept ember 22, 2010, i n a one- count i ndi ct ment , a gr and

j ury char ged Car t er wi t h t he knowi ng possess i on of a f i r earm

f ol l owi ng a pr evi ous convi ct i on of a mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c

vi ol ence, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 9) and 924( a) .

Car t er f i l ed a mot i on t o di smi ss t he i ndi ct ment , ar gui ng t hat t he

Mai ne assaul t st at ut e i s not adequat e t o const i t ut e a pr edi cat e

"mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence" f or pur poses of

922( g) ( 9) . Car t er r ecogni zed t hat t hen- cur r ent precedent was

cont r ar y t o hi s posi t i on, but nonet hel ess st at ed t hat he wi shed t o

pr eser ve hi s argument s on t hi s poi nt f or pur poses of appeal , ci t i ng

hi s bel i ef t hat "t he l aw i n t he ar ea i s i n consi der abl e f l ux. "

I n a one- sent ence or der , t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed

Car t er ' s mot i on on t he basi s t hat Uni t ed St at es v. Booker , 644 F. 3d

12 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) , "ser ves as bi ndi ng and cont r ol l i ng pr ecedent

f or t he i ssues pr esent ed i n Def endant ' s Mot i on. " Car t er t hen

ent er ed a condi t i onal gui l t y pl ea, r eser vi ng hi s r i ght t o appeal

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s or der on hi s mot i on t o di smi ss.

Subsequent l y, Car t er f i l ed a suppl ement al mot i on t o

di smi ss t he i ndi ct ment , t hi s t i me ar gui ng that "Congr ess exceeded

i t s aut hor i t y i n enact i ng [ 922( g) ( 9) ] i n t hat i t depr i ves an

i ndi vi dual of a core r i ght under t he Second Amendment wi t hout

suf f i ci ent j ust i f i cat i on t o pass ei t her st r i ct scr ut i ny or even

hei ght ened scr ut i ny. " The di st r i ct cour t al so deni ed t hat mot i on,

-6-


7/29

and Car t er ent er ed an amended condi t i onal gui l t y pl ea, r eservi ng

t he r i ght t o appeal f r omt he cour t ' s deni al of bot h of hi s mot i ons

t o di smi ss. 3

I n Car t er ' s onl y obj ect i on at sent enci ng, he ar gued t hat

he was ent i t l ed t o a r educed sent enci ng r ange pur suant t o t he

"spor t i ng pur poses or col l ect i on" except i on under t he Uni t ed St at es

Sent enci ng Gui del i nes. 4 The di st r i ct cour t r ej ect ed t hi s ar gument ,

f i ndi ng t hat Car t er f ai l ed t o pr ove t hat he qual i f i ed f or ei t her

pr ong of t he except i on. The cour t nonet hel ess var i ed f r om t he

bot t omof t he gui del i nes r ange - - ei ght een mont hs - - and sent enced

Car t er t o a t otal t erm of i mpr i sonment of t wel ve mont hs and one

day. Upon a mot i on by Cart er , t he cour t st ayed t he execut i on of

t he sent ence pendi ng r esol ut i on of t hi s appeal .

3 I n hi s or i gi nal appel l at e br i ef bef or e us, Car t er r enewed bot har gument s he r ai sed i n hi s mot i ons t o di smi ss t he i ndi ct ment . I n

hi s r epl y br i ef , however , Car t er conceded t hat t hese two i ssueswer e f or ecl osed by our deci si on i n Uni t ed St at es v. Ar mst r ong, 706F. 3d 1 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) , vacat ed, 82 U. S. L. W. 3566 ( U. S. Mar . 31,2014) , but he sought t o pr eser ve hi s argument s f or potent i alf ur t her appel l ate r evi ew. On March 31, 2014, t he Supr eme Cour tvacated our j udgment i n Ar mst r ong and r emanded the case t o us f orf ur t her r econsi der at i on i n l i ght of Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . 1405.See Ar mst r ong, 82 U. S. L. W. 3566. Theref ore, we must consi der t owhat ext ent Cast l eman i mpact s Cart er ' s f i r st t wo cl ai ms, whi ch wer epr evi ousl y f or ecl osed by Fi r st Ci r cui t pr ecedent .

4 That except i on pr ovi des f or a r educed sent enci ng r ange i f t he

def endant "possessed al l ammuni t i on and f i r ear ms sol el y f or l awf ulspor t i ng pur poses or col l ect i on, and di d not unl awf ul l y di schar geor ot her wi se unl awf ul l y use such f i r ear ms or ammuni t i on. " USSG 2K2. 1( b) ( 2) ( t he "spor t i ng pur poses or col l ect i on" except i on) .I f Car t er had qual i f i ed f or t he except i on, hi s Gui del i nesSentenci ng Range woul d have been r educed f r om 18- 24 mont hs ofi mpr i sonment t o 0- 6 mont hs.

-7-


8/29

II. Discussion

A. Second Amendment Claim

I n Car t er ' s f i r st cl ai m on appeal , he r enews t he

const i t ut i onal ar gument he pr evi ousl y rai sed i n hi s suppl ement al

mot i on t o di smi ss t he i ndi ct ment . Car t er ar gues t hat 922( g) ( 9)

"depr i ves a si gni f i cant popul at i on of non- vi ol ent of f ender s f r om

exer ci si ng a cor e const i t ut i onal r i ght " pr ot ect ed by the Second

Amendment . Rel yi ng on t he Supr eme Cour t ' s deci si on i n Hel l er , 554

U. S. 570, he assert s t hat t he Second Amendment " i s an i ndi vi dual

r i ght whi ch may not be abr ogated by government al f i at wi t hout

compel l i ng i nt er est s. " Car t er st at es t hat t he gover nment f ai l ed t o

est abl i sh any such basi s her e, and t hat gi ven t hi s l ack of

j ust i f i cat i on, 922( g) ( 9) does not survi ve ei t her st r i ct scr ut i ny

or hei ght ened scr ut i ny.

Car t er mai nt ai ns t hat a r est r i ct i on depr i vi ng compet ent

non- f el ons of t hei r Second Amendment r i ght s must be nar r owl y

t ai l or ed t o a compel l i ng gover nment al i nt er est . He asser t s t hat

" [ b] ecause t her e i s no r el i abl e i nf or mat i on t hat mi sdemeanant s are

l i kel y to mi suse f i r ear ms at a r at e any gr eat er t han t hose not

convi ct ed of such pet t y cr i mes, t he l aw f ai l s const i t ut i onal

must er . " I n Car t er ' s vi ew, t he gover nment has not est abl i shed a

subst ant i al connect i on between t he har m sought t o be avoi ded ( a

r educt i on i n t he number of deat hs due t o domest i c vi ol ence) and t he

pr oscr i pt i on enumer at ed i n 922( g) ( 9) ( bar r i ng t he possessi on of

-8-


9/29

f i r ear ms by persons pr evi ousl y convi ct ed of a mi sdemeanor cr i me of

domest i c vi ol ence) . Ther ef or e, Car t er concl udes that t he st at ut e

i s an unconst i t ut i onal i nf r i ngement of a f undament al r i ght .

Because Car t er ' s cl ai mr ai ses a const i t ut i onal chal l enge

t o a f eder al st at ut e, we revi ew t hi s Second Amendment cl ai m de

novo. See Booker , 644 F. 3d at 22. Car t er ' s const i t ut i onal cl ai m

r emai ns squar el y f or ecl osed by our opi ni on i n Booker . I d. at 25-

26. Li ke Car t er , t he def endant s i n Booker wer e bot h convi ct ed

under 922( g) ( 9) f ol l owi ng pr i or convi ct i ons under t he Mai ne

gener al - pur pose assaul t st at ut e, and bot h "ar gue[ d] t hat

922( g) ( 9) unconst i t ut i onal l y abr i dges t hei r Second Amendment

r i ght t o bear ar ms. " I d. at 13- 15.

We r esoundi ngl y rej ect ed t hi s cl ai mi n Booker , r easoni ng

t hat t her e cannot "be any quest i on t hat t her e i s a subst ant i al

r el at i onshi p bet ween 922( g) ( 9) ' s di squal i f i cat i on of domest i c

vi ol ence mi sdemeanant s f r om gun ownershi p and t he government al

i nt er est i n pr event i ng gun vi ol ence i n t he home. " I d. at 25. We

ci t ed J ust i ce Depar t ment st at i st i cs t hat suppor t t he Supr eme

Cour t ' s st at ement t hat " ' [ f ] i r ear ms and domest i c st r i f e ar e a

pot ent i al l y deadl y combi nat i on nat i onwi de. ' " I d. ( obser vi ng t hat

a f i r ear m was used i n appr oxi mat el y 65 per cent of t he 52, 000

domest i c murder s bet ween 1976 and 1996 ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v.

Hayes, 555 U. S. 415, 427 ( 2009) ) ) . Gi ven t hat " r esear ch has f ound

t hat ' [ t ] he pr esence of a gun i n t he home of a convi ct ed domest i c

-9-


10/29

abuser i s " st r ongl y and i ndependent l y associ at ed wi t h an i ncr eased

r i sk of homi ci de, "' " i d. at 26 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Skoi en,

614 F. 3d 638, 643- 44 ( 7t h Ci r . 2010) ) , we r easoned t hat " [ i ] t

f ol l ows t hat r emovi ng guns f r omt he home wi l l mat er i al l y al l evi at e

t he danger of i nt i mat e homi ci de by convi ct ed abusers. " I d.

Ther ef or e, we concl uded t hat " i t i s pl ai n t hat 922( g) ( 9)

subst ant i al l y pr omot es an i mpor t ant gover nment i nt er est i n

pr event i ng domest i c gun vi ol ence. " I d.

The appel l ant i n Ar mst r ong al so brought a Second

Amendment chal l enge to hi s 922( g) ( 9) convi ct i on, but sought t o

di st i ngui sh hi s case f r omBooker by char act er i zi ng hi s cl ai mas an

"as- appl i ed" chal l enge. Ar mst r ong, 706 F. 3d at 7. We r ej ect ed

Ar mst r ong' s cl ai mf or t wo r easons. Fi r st , we hel d t hat Ar mst r ong' s

"as- appl i ed" chal l enge necessar i l y f ai l ed because hi s case

pr esent ed " t he same ki nd of f act si t uat i on envi si oned i n Booker . "

I d. at 8. Second, we hel d t hat Ar mst r ong' s chal l enge f ai l ed

"because a suf f i ci ent nexus exi st s her e bet ween t he i mpor t ant

gover nment i nt er est and t he di squal i f i cat i on of domest i c vi ol ence

mi sdemeanant s l i ke [ Ar mst r ong] . " I d.

The Supr eme Cour t ' s vacat i on of our j udgment i n Ar mst r ong

f or r econsi der at i on i n l i ght of Cast l eman does not hi ng f or Car t er ' s

argument on t hi s i ssue. See Ar mst r ong, 82 U. S. L. W. 3566. The

def endant i n Cast l eman di d not chal l enge t he const i t ut i onal i t y of

922( g) ( 9) , and t he Supr eme Cour t ' s opi ni on di d not addr ess t he

-10-


11/29

Second Amendment or t he const i t ut i onal i t y of t he st at ut e. See

Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . at 1416. Theref ore, Cast l eman does not

i mpact our r easoni ng i n Ar mst r ong nor our hol di ng i n Booker wi t h

r espect t o t he const i t ut i onal i t y of 922( g) ( 9) . As Car t er has

conceded, hi s Second Amendment cl ai mr emai ns f orecl osed by bi ndi ng

pr ecedent i n t hi s ci r cui t . See Booker , 644 F. 3d at 25- 26.

B. The Maine Assault Statute as a Predicate Crime of Conviction

I n Car t er ' s second cl ai m on appeal , he ar gues t hat t he

commi ssi on of a si mpl e assaul t by reckl essl y causi ng of f ensi ve

physi cal cont act i s i nadequat e t o const i t ut e a pr edi cat e convi ct i on

of a "mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence" f or pur poses of 18

U. S. C. 922( g) ( 9) . Gi ven t hat t hi s i ssue depends upon t he pr oper

i nt er pr et at i on of t he r el evant st at ut or y l anguage, we r evi ew t hi s

quest i on of l aw de novo. See Booker , 644 F. 3d at 17. Whi l e t he

quest i on whet her Car t er ' s ear l i er assaul t convi ct i on const i t ut es a

val i d pr edi cat e of f ense under 922( g) ( 9) i s an i ssue of f eder al

l aw, we are bound by the Mai ne Law Cour t ' s i nt erpr etat i on of Mai ne

st at e l aw. See J ohnson v. Uni t ed St at es, 559 U. S. 133, 138 ( 2010) .

1. The Statutory Framework

Car t er was char ged wi t h - - and condi t i onal l y pl eaded

gui l t y to - - vi ol at i ng t he Laut enberg Amendment t o t he Gun Cont r ol

Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 9) ( t he "Laut enberg Amendment " or

" 922( g) ( 9) " ) . Under t he Laut enber g Amendment , i t i s unl awf ul f or

any per son "who has been convi ct ed i n any court of a mi sdemeanor

-11-


12/29

cri me of domest i c vi ol ence, t o . . . possess i n or af f ect i ng

commer ce, any f i r ear m or ammuni t i on. " 18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 9) . For

t hese pur poses, a "mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence" i s

f ur t her def i ned i n 18 U. S. C. 921( a) ( 33) ( A) as an of f ense t hat :

( i ) i s a mi sdemeanor under Feder al , St at e, orTr i bal l aw; and

( i i ) has, as an el ement , t he use or at t empt eduse of physi cal f or ce, or t he thr eat ened useof a deadl y weapon, commi t t ed by a cur r ent orf or mer spouse, par ent , or guar di an of t hevi ct i m, by a per son wi t h whom t he vi ct i mshares a chi l d i n common, by a person who i scohabi t i ng wi t h or has cohabi t ed wi t h t hevi ct i mas a spouse, par ent , or guar di an, or bya per son si mi l ar l y si t uat ed t o a spouse,par ent , or guar di an of t he vi ct i m[ . ]

18 U. S. C. 921( a) ( 33) ( A) ( emphasi s added) .

Car t er chal l enges whet her t he Mai ne assaul t st at ut e "has,

as an el ement , t he use or at t empt ed use of physi cal f or ce. " See

i d. Under t he gener al - pur pose assaul t pr ovi si on i n t he Mai ne

Cr i mi nal Code, a per son i s gui l t y of "assaul t " i f "[ t ] he per son

i nt ent i onal l y, knowi ngl y or r eckl essl y causes bodi l y i nj ur y or

of f ensi ve physi cal cont act t o anot her per son. " See Me. Rev. St at .

t i t . 17- A, 207( 1) ( A) . 5 Car t er condi t i onal l y pl eaded gui l t y t o

5 A def endant i s f ur t her gui l t y of "domest i c vi ol ence assaul t " i f( 1) t he def endant vi ol at es t he Mai ne si mpl e assaul t pr ovi si on, and

( 2) " t he vi ct i m i s a f ami l y or househol d member . " See Me. Rev.St at . t i t . 17- A, 207- A( 1) ( A) . Vi ol at i on of ei t her pr ovi s i on - -gener al - pur pose assaul t or "domest i c vi ol ence assaul t " - -const i t ut es a "Cl ass D" cr i me under t he Mai ne Cr i mi nal Code, whi chi s equi val ent t o a mi sdemeanor . See St at e v. Al l en, 377 A. 2d 472,475 ( Me. 1977) ( "We t her ef ore deemCl ass D and Cl ass E cr i mes t o bet he Cr i mi nal Code equi val ent s of mi sdemeanor s. " ) . Car t er ' s

-12-


13/29

t hi s of f ense, as char ged i n hi s I nf or mat i on: "Wayne Car t er di d

i nt ent i onal l y, knowi ngl y or r eckl essl y cause bodi l y i nj ur y or

of f ensi ve physi cal cont act t o Angi e Eagan. " 6

2. Carter's Statutory Arguments

Car t er l evi es t hr ee mai n ar gument s i n suppor t of hi s

posi t i on t hat r eckl ess of f ensi ve cont act ( as pr ohi bi t ed by t he

Mai ne assaul t st at ut e) does not meet t he def i ni t i on of a

"mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence" i nvol vi ng " t he use or

at t empt ed use of physi cal f or ce" agai nst a domest i c par t ner .

Fi r st , Car t er ar gues t hat t he "use or at t empt ed use of physi cal

f or ce" l anguage r equi r es i nt ent i onal , and not mer el y reckl ess,

conduct . Second, even i f non- vi ol ent r eckl ess conduct i s

encompassed wi t hi n t he "use . . . of physi cal f or ce" l anguage,

Car t er mai nt ai ns t hat t he combi nat i on of t hi s l anguage wi t h t he

"mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence" l anguage i n 922( g) ( 9) i s

ambi guous i n l i ght of t he Supr eme Cour t ' s deci si on i n J ohnson, 559

U. S. 133, and t hus t he r ul e of l eni t y requi r es t hat hi s pr i or Mai ne

convi ct i on cannot serve as a pr edi cat e of f ense. 7 Thi r d, Car t er

I nf or mat i on char ged hi m wi t h "assaul t " under 207( 1) ( A) , but not"domest i c vi ol ence assaul t " under 207- A( 1) ( A) .

6 As pr evi ousl y summar i zed, pol i ce r epor t s i ndi cat ed t hat t hese

charges st emmed f r oma 1997 domest i c i nci dent i n whi ch Cart er spi ti n Eagan' s f ace and shoved her on her r i ght shoul der . Af t er t heent r y of hi s gui l t y pl ea, Car t er was sent enced t o ser ve t hi r t y daysi n j ai l .

7 On t hi s poi nt , we not e t hat t he Supr eme Cour t expr essl ydi savowed t hat i t s J ohnson deci si on woul d cont r ol t he

-13-


14/29

asser t s t hat t he canon of const i t ut i onal avoi dance suppor t s a

r eadi ng of 922( g) ( 9) and 921( a) ( 33) ( A) t hat r eaches onl y t hose

cr i mes t hat ar e commi t t ed t hr ough " i nt ent i onal l y vi ol ent conduct . " 8

On sever al occasi ons, we have r ej ect ed si mi l ar chal l enges

t o 922( g) ( 9) convi ct i ons pr edi cat ed upon pr i or convi ct i ons under

t he Mai ne gener al - pur pose assaul t and "domest i c vi ol ence assaul t "

st at ut es. See Ar mst r ong, 706 F. 3d at 3- 7 ( r ej ect i ng def endant ' s

cl ai m t hat t he Mai ne domest i c vi ol ence assaul t st at ut e coul d not

serve as a pr edi cat e of f ense f or 922( g) ( 9) ) ; Booker , 644 F. 3d at

13- 14, 21 ( af f i r mi ng convi ct i ons pr edi cat ed upon Mai ne' s gener al -

pur pose assaul t st at ut e, and hol di ng t hat "an of f ense wi t h a mens

r ea of r eckl essness may qual i f y as a ' mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c

vi ol ence' under 922( g) ( 9) " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Nason, 269 F. 3d 10,

i nt erpr etat i on of t he Laut enberg Amendment . See J ohnson, 559 U. S.at 143- 44 ( "We have i nt er pr et ed t he phr ase ' physi cal f or ce' onl y i n

t he cont ext of a st at ut or y def i ni t i on of ' vi ol ent f el ony. ' We donot deci de t hat t he phr ase has t he same meani ng i n t he cont ext ofdef i ni ng a mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence. The i ssue i snot bef or e us, so we do not deci de i t . " ) . Subsequent l y,consi der i ng t he Lautenber g Amendment i n Cast l eman, t he SupremeCour t expl i ci t l y rej ect ed Cast l eman' s r ul e- of - l eni t y ar gumentr egar di ng 922( g) ( 9) , r easoni ng t hat t her e i s no " ' gr i evousambi gui t y or uncer t ai nt y i n t he st at ut e, such t hat t he Cour t mustsi mpl y guess as t o what Congr ess i nt ended. ' " Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct .at 1416 ( quot i ng Barber v. Thomas, 560 U. S. 474, 488 ( 2010) ) .

8 As expl ai ned i n f ur t her det ai l her ei n, we have pr evi ousl y uphel d

t he const i t ut i onal i t y of 922( g) ( 9) . See, e. g. , Booker , 644 F. 3dat 25- 26. The Supr eme Cour t ' s Cast l eman deci si on does not cal li nt o quest i on t hi s const i t ut i onal det er mi nat i on. Her e, Car t err ai ses hi s const i t ut i onal doubt ar gument i n t hr ee par agr aphs. Asi n Cast l eman, "t he meani ng of t he st at ut e i s suf f i ci ent l y cl eart hat we need not i ndul ge [Car t er ] ' s cur sor y nod t o const i t ut i onalavoi dance concerns. " See Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . at 1416.

-14-


15/29

20- 21 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( hol di ng t hat bot h act us r eus var i ant s of t he

Mai ne assaul t st at ut e - - bodi l y i nj ur y and of f ensi ve physi cal

cont act - - necessar i l y i nvol ve t he use of physi cal f or ce) . Thus,

under our past pr ecedent , al l combi nat i ons of t he act us r eus and

mens r ea requi r ed by the Mai ne assaul t st at ut e wer e suf f i ci ent t o

const i t ut e t he "use . . . of physi cal f or ce" f or pur poses of

ser vi ng as a pr edi cat e of f ense f or a 922( g) ( 9) convi ct i on. See

Booker , 644 F. 3d at 21; Nason, 269 F. 3d at 20- 21.

I ndeed, Car t er conceded i n hi s r epl y br i ef t hat hi s

ar gument s on t hi s i ssue wer e f or ecl osed by t hen- bi ndi ng pr ecedent ,

i ncl udi ng Ar mst r ong, whi ch at t he t i me was our most r ecent deci si on

af f i r mi ng a 922( g) ( 9) convi ct i on pr edi cat ed upon one of Mai ne' s

assaul t st at ut es. See Ar mst r ong, 706 F. 3d at 2- 7. Our opi ni on i n

Ar mst r ong, i n t ur n, r el i ed on our pr i or deci si ons i n Booker , 644

F. 3d 12, and Nason, 269 F. 3d 10. See Ar mst r ong, 706 F. 3d at 2.

However , because t he Supr eme Cour t r ecent l y vacat ed our j udgment i n

Ar mst r ong and r emanded t he case f or r econsi der at i on i n l i ght of i t s

opi ni on i n Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . 1405, we must exami ne t he i mpact

of Cast l eman upon our pr ecedent , as r el evant t o Car t er ' s ar gument s.

3. The Supreme Court's Opinion in Castleman

The def endant i n Cast l eman pl eaded gui l t y, i n a Tennessee

cour t , t o havi ng "i nt ent i onal l y or knowi ngl y cause[ d] bodi l y i nj ur y

t o" t he mot her of hi s chi l d. Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . at 1408, 1409.

He was l at er i ndi ct ed on t wo count s of vi ol at i ng 922( g) ( 9) , af t er

-15-


16/29

f eder al aut hor i t i es l ear ned t hat he was sel l i ng f i r ear ms on t he

bl ack market . I d. at 1409. Cast l eman argued t hat t he Tennessee

st at ut e di d not "' ha[ ve] , as an el ement , t he use . . . of physi cal

f or ce. ' " I d. ( quot i ng 18 U. S. C. 921( a) ( 33) ( A) ( i i ) ) . A di vi ded

Si xt h Ci r cui t panel af f i r med t he di smi ssal of Cast l eman' s

convi ct i ons on t he 922( g) ( 9) count s, hol di ng t hat hi s Tennessee

convi ct i on was not a val i d pr edi cat e of f ense f or pur poses of

922( g) ( 9) because Cast l eman coul d have been convi ct ed f or

"' caus[ i ng] a sl i ght , nonser i ous physi cal i nj ur y wi t h conduct t hat

cannot be descr i bed as vi ol ent . ' " See i d. at 1409- 10 ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St ates v. Cast l eman, 695 F. 3d 582, 590 ( 6t h Ci r . 2012) ,

r ev' d and remanded, 134 S. Ct . 1405) .

The Supreme Cour t grant ed cer t i or ar i t o r esol ve a spl i t

of aut hor i t y among t he ci r cui t cour t s of appeal s. See i d. at 1410

( compar i ng our deci si on i n Nason, 269 F. 3d at 18, whi ch f ound t hat

922( g) ( 9) "encompass[ es] cr i mes char act er i zed by the appl i cat i on

of any physi cal f or ce, " wi t h Uni t ed St at es v. Bel l ess, 338 F. 3d

1063, 1068 ( 9t h Ci r . 2003) , whi ch hel d t hat 922( g) ( 9) cover s onl y

"t he vi ol ent use of f or ce") . Concl udi ng t hat Cast l eman' s st at e

convi ct i on qual i f i ed as a "mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence, "

t he Supr eme Cour t r ever sed t he Si xth Ci r cui t ' s det er mi nat i on t hat

t he di st r i ct cour t had pr oper l y di smi ssed Cast l eman' s t wo 922

( g) ( 9) count s. I d. at 1410, 1415- 16.

-16-


17/29

I n i nt er pr et i ng t he meani ng of "physi cal f or ce" f or

pur poses of 922( g) ( 9) and 921( a) ( 33) ( A) , t he Supr eme Cour t hel d

t hat t hi s l anguage encompasses " t he common- l aw meani ng of ' f orce'

- - namel y, of f ensi ve t ouchi ng. " I d. at 1410. The Cour t expl ai ned

t hat "' [ d] omest i c vi ol ence' i s not mer el y a t ype of ' vi ol ence' ; i t

i s a t er mof ar t encompassi ng act s t hat one mi ght not char act er i ze

as ' vi ol ent ' i n a nondomest i c cont ext " - - act s such as sl appi ng,

shovi ng, pushi ng, gr abbi ng, hai r - pul l i ng, and spi t t i ng. I d. at

1411 & n. 5.

Fur t her mor e, t he Cour t observed t hat t he assaul t or

bat t er y l aws r out i nel y used t o pr osecut e domest i c abusers, bot h at

t he t i me 922( g) ( 9) was enacted and cont i nui ng t hr ough t he

pr esent , "f al l gener al l y i nt o t wo cat egor i es: t hose t hat pr ohi bi t

bot h of f ensi ve t ouchi ng and t he causat i on of bodi l y i nj ur y, and

t hose t hat pr ohi bi t onl y t he l at t er . " I d. at 1413. The Cour t

r easoned t hat an i nt er pr et at i on of " f or ce" under 921( a) ( 33) ( A)

t hat excl uded a mere "of f ensi ve t ouchi ng" woul d have rendered t he

Laut enber g Amendment " i nef f ect ual i n at l east 10 St ates - - home t o

near l y t hi r t y per cent of t he Nat i on' s popul at i on - - at t he t i me of

i t s enact ment . " I d. ( f oot not e omi t t ed) . Concl udi ng i t s

i nt er pr et at i on of t he meani ng of "physi cal f or ce" f or pur poses of

922( g) ( 9) , t he Cour t hel d t hat t hi s r equi r ement i s sat i sf i ed "by

t he degr ee of f or ce t hat suppor t s a common- l aw bat t er y convi ct i on"

- - i ncl udi ng an of f ensi ve t ouchi ng. I d.

-17-


18/29

Next , t he Cour t exami ned whether Cast l eman' s convi ct i on

qual i f i ed as a "mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence. " I d. The

Cour t began by queryi ng whether t he "categor i cal appr oach"

ar t i cul at ed i n Tayl or v. Uni t ed St at es, 495 U. S. 575 ( 1990)

r esol ved t he i ssue. I d. Under t hi s appr oach, cour t s shoul d "' l ook

t o t he st at ut or y def i ni t i on of t he of f ense i n quest i on, as opposed

t o t he par t i cul ar f act s under l yi ng t he convi ct i on. ' " Uni t ed St at es

v. Dvi l a- Fl i x, 667 F. 3d 47, 56 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Pi per , 35 F. 3d 611, 619 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ) . I f t he

"st at ut or y def i ni t i on" of t he pr i or st at e of f ense necessar i l y met

t he r equi r ement s of 922( g) ( 9) , t hen t he Cour t woul d be abl e t o

det er mi ne t hat "a domest i c assaul t convi ct i on i n Tennessee

cat egor i cal l y const i t ut es a ' mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c

vi ol ence. ' " See Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . at 1414 ( emphasi s added) .

The Cast l eman Cour t decl i ned t o make such a

det er mi nat i on, however , and i nst ead expr essed i t s skept i ci sm by

st at i ng t hat " [ i ] t does not appear t hat ever y t ype of assaul t

def i ned by [ t he Tennessee st at ut e] necessar i l y i nvol ves ' t he use or

at t empt ed use of physi cal f or ce, or t he thr eat ened use of a deadl y

weapon. ' " I d. at 1413- 14. For exampl e, t he Cour t r easoned t hat ,

under t he Tennessee st at ut e, " [ a] t hr eat . . . may not necessar i l y

i nvol ve a deadl y weapon, and t he merel y reckl ess causat i on of

bodi l y i nj ur y . . . may not be a ' use' of f or ce. " I d. at 1414.

-18-


19/29

Because the par t i es i n Cast l eman di d not cont est t hat t he

Tennessee st at ute i s a " ' di vi si bl e st at ute, ' " t he Cour t t hen

appl i ed t he "modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach, consul t i ng t he

i ndi ct ment t o whi ch Cast l eman pl eaded gui l t y i n or der t o det er mi ne

whet her hi s convi ct i on di d ent ai l t he el ement s necessary to

const i t ut e t he gener i c f eder al of f ense. " I d. at 1414 ( ci t i ng

Descamps v. Uni t ed St at es, 133 S. Ct . 2276, 2281- 82 ( 2013) ) . I n

Cast l eman, t he Cour t hel d, "t hat anal ysi s i s st r ai ght f or war d:

Cast l eman pl eaded gui l t y t o havi ng ' i nt ent i onal l y or knowi ngl y

cause[ d] bodi l y i nj ur y' t o t he mot her of hi s chi l d, and t he knowi ng

or i nt ent i onal causat i on of bodi l y i nj ur y necessar i l y i nvol ves t he

use of physi cal f or ce. " I d. at 1414 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal )

( i nt er nal ci t at i on omi t t ed) . The Cour t r easoned t hat "[ i ] t i s

i mpossi bl e t o cause bodi l y i nj ur y wi t hout appl yi ng f or ce i n t he

common- l aw sense, " and " t he knowi ng or i nt ent i onal appl i cat i on of

f or ce i s a ' use' of f or ce. " I d. at 1415. Ther ef or e, t he Cour t

concl uded t hat Cast l eman' s convi ct i on was a val i d pr edi cat e of f ense

f or 922( g) ( 9) , because hi s " i ndi ct ment makes cl ear t hat t he use

of physi cal f or ce was an el ement of hi s convi ct i on. " I d. 9

9 The Supr eme Cour t f ur t her hel d t hat i t was not per suaded by"Cast l eman' s nont extual ar gument s, " hi s " i nvocat i on of t he r ul e ofl eni t y, " and hi s " cur sor y nod t o const i t ut i onal avoi danceconcer ns. " I d. at 1415- 16.

-19-


20/29

4. The Modified Categorical Approach

Here, Cart er does not cont end t hat t he Mai ne general -

pur pose assaul t st at ut e i s an "i ndi vi si bl e" st at ut e. See i d. at

1414; Descamps, 133 S. Ct . at 2281- 82. 10 Nor coul d he, as t he Mai ne

st at ut e "set s out one or mor e el ement s of t he of f ense i n t he

al t er nat i ve. " See Descamps, 133 S. Ct . at 2281; see al so Me. Rev.

St at . t i t . 17- A, 207( 1) ( A) ( pr ovi di ng t hat a per son i s gui l t y of

"assaul t " i f "[ t ] he per son i nt ent i onal l y, knowi ngl y or r eckl essl y

causes bodi l y i nj ur y or of f ensi ve physi cal cont act t o anot her

per son") ( emphasi s added) . Ther ef or e, t he Mai ne st at ut e i s

di vi si bl e, and " [ w] e may accor di ngl y appl y t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal

appr oach. " See Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . at 1414.

The Mai ne gener al - pur pose assaul t st at ute i s di vi si bl e

i nt o si x per mut at i ons of subsumed of f enses, based on the

combi nat i on of one el ement f r om each of t wo cat egor i es: ( 1) mens

r ea ( "i nt ent i onal l y, knowi ngl y or r eckl essl y") , and ( 2) actus r eus

( "causes bodi l y i nj ur y or of f ensi ve physi cal cont act t o anot her

per son") . See Me. Rev. St at . t i t . 17- A, 207( 1) ( A) . We have

pr evi ousl y hel d t hat bot h act us r eus pr ongs of t he Mai ne st at ut e - -

10 An " i ndi vi si bl e" st at ut e does not cont ai n al t er nat i ve el ement s,

but i nst ead "has a si ngl e, i ndi vi si bl e set of el ement s. " Descamps,133 S. Ct . at 2281- 82. I n Descamps, t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hatcour t s - - i n det er mi ni ng whet her a past convi ct i on const i t ut es apr edi cat e of f ense f or pur poses of t he sent enci ng enhancement senumerated i n t he Ar med Career Cr i mi nal Act , 18 U. S. C. 924( e) - -may appl y t he "modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach" t o di vi si bl est at ut es, but not t o i ndi vi si bl e st at ut es. See i d.

-20-


21/29

bodi l y i nj ur y and of f ensi ve physi cal cont act - - "necessar i l y

i nvol ve t he use of physi cal f or ce" and t hus can suppor t a

convi ct i on under t he Laut enber g Amendment . See Nason, 269 F. 3d at

21. Subsequent cont r ol l i ng aut hor i t y has not under mi ned t hi s

hol di ng or r easoni ng. See, e. g. , Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . at 1410- 13

( hol di ng t hat an of f ensi ve t ouchi ng, or t he f or ce suppor t i ng a

common- l aw bat t er y convi ct i on, i s suf f i ci ent t o const i t ut e t he use

of physi cal f or ce f or pur poses of 922( g) ( 9) ) ; i d. at 1415 ( "I t i s

i mpossi bl e t o cause bodi l y i nj ur y wi t hout appl yi ng f or ce i n t he

common- l aw sense. " ) ; Booker , 644 F. 3d at 18 ( r ej ect i ng t he ar gument

t hat t he Supr eme Cour t ' s opi ni on i n J ohnson, 559 U. S. 133,

"r epudi at e[ d] Nason' s hol di ng t hat ' of f ensi ve physi cal cont act '

i nvol ves t he ' use of physi cal f or ce' wi t hi n t he meani ng of

922( g) ( 9) ") .

I n Booker , we f ur t her consi dered whether t he Laut enberg

Amendment r equi r es a hei ght ened mens r ea requi r ement - - "namel y,

whet her t he f eder al def i ni t i on of ' mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c

vi ol ence' can be r ead t o pr escr i be an i nt ent i onal st at e of mi nd f or

a qual i f yi ng pr edi cat e of f ense. " Booker , 644 F. 3d at 18. We

r ej ect ed t hat ar gument , hol di ng t hat "t he stat ut or y def i ni t i on of

' mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence' does not pr escr i be an

i nt ent i onal mens r ea" and t hat a pr i or "of f ense wi t h a mens r ea of

r eckl essness" may suppor t a convi ct i on under 922( g) ( 9) . I d. at

21.

-21-


22/29

However , t he Supr eme Cour t ' s r ecent deci si on i n Cast l eman

cast s doubt upon t hi s hol di ng. See Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . at 1414

& n. 8. Di ct um i n Cast l eman suggest s t hat " t he mer el y r eckl ess

causat i on of bodi l y i nj ur y under [ t he Tennessee assaul t st at ut e]

may not be a ' use' of f or ce. " I d. at 1414. I n suppor t of t hi s

pr oposi t i on, t he Supr eme Cour t not ed t hat " t he Cour t s of Appeal s

have al most uni f or ml y hel d t hat r eckl essness i s not suf f i ci ent " t o

"const i t ut e a ' use' of f or ce. " I d. at 1414 n. 8 ( cont r ast i ng our

hol di ng i n Booker wi t h t he hol di ngs of t he Second, Thi r d, Four t h,

Fi f t h, Si xt h, Sevent h, Ei ght h, Ni nt h, Tent h, and El event h

Ci r cui t s) . Ul t i mat el y, t he Cour t di d not need t o r esol ve t he

r eckl essness quest i on i n Cast l eman, because "Cast l eman pl eaded

gui l t y t o havi ng ' i nt ent i onal l y or knowi ngl y cause[ d] bodi l y

i nj ur y' t o t he mot her of hi s chi l d, and t he knowi ng or i nt ent i onal

causat i on of bodi l y i nj ur y necessar i l y i nvol ves t he use of physi cal

f or ce. " I d. at 1414 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal ci t at i on

omi t t ed) .

Based upon t he Supr eme Cour t ' s r easoni ng i n Cast l eman,

however , t he val i di t y of Car t er ' s 922( g) ( 9) convi ct i on may depend

on whi ch mens- r ea prong of t he Mai ne general - pur pose assaul t

st at ut e ser ved as t he basi s f or hi s gui l t y pl ea and convi ct i on. 11

11 Gi ven t hat Cast l eman does not di r ect l y over r ul e Booker , st ar edeci si s woul d nor mal l y bi nd us t o adher e t o our ear l i er r ul i ng ont hi s i ssue. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr guez- Pacheco, 475F. 3d 434, 441 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( st at i ng t hat "[ a] panel of t hi scour t i s nor mal l y bound t o f ol l ow an ear l i er panel deci si on t hat i s

-22-


23/29

Ther ef or e, t her e r emai ns a quest i on as t o whi ch subsumed of f ense

Car t er pl eaded gui l t y under t he di vi si bl e Mai ne assaul t st at ut e.

5. The "Approved" Shepard Documents

To answer t hi s quest i on, under t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal

appr oach, we may "consul t [ ] t he t r i al r ecor d - - i ncl udi ng char gi ng

document s, pl ea agr eement s, t r anscr i pt s of pl ea col l oqui es,

f i ndi ngs of f act and concl usi ons of l aw f r om a bench t r i al , and

j ury i nst r uct i ons and ver di ct f or ms" - - i n or der t o "det er mi ne

whi ch st at ut or y phr ase was t he basi s f or t he convi ct i on" under such

cl osel y on poi nt " ) . However , "we have r ecogni zed t wo except i ons t ot hi s st ar e deci si s r ul e. " I d. Fi r st , we may depar t f r om anexi st i ng panel deci si on when subsequent cont r ol l i ng aut hor i t y - -such as a Supr eme Cour t opi ni on, Fi r st Ci r cui t en banc opi ni on, ora new st at ut e - - under mi nes our ear l i er opi ni on. I d. Second,t her e i s a "l i mi t ed except i on t hat per mi t s one panel t o over r ul eanot her i n ' t hose r el at i vel y r ar e i nst ances i n whi ch aut hor i t y t hatpost dat es t he or i gi nal deci si on, al t hough not di r ect l y cont r ol l i ng,never t hel ess of f er s a sound r eason f or bel i evi ng t hat t he f or merpanel , i n l i ght of f r esh devel opment s, woul d change i t s col l ect i ve

mi nd. ' " I d. at 442 ( quot i ng Wi l l i ams v. Ashl and Eng' g Co. , 45 F. 3d588, 592 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ( subsequent case hi st or y omi t t ed) ) .

The Supreme Cour t ' s st at ement s i n Cast l eman - - t hat " t hemer el y reckl ess causat i on of bodi l y i nj ur y . . . may not be a ' use'of f or ce, " Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . at 1414, and t hat " t he Cour t s ofAppeal s have al most uni f or ml y hel d t hat r eckl essness i s notsuf f i ci ent " t o "const i t ut e a ' use' of f or ce, " i d. at 1414 n. 8 - -pr ovi de a " ' sound r eason' " f or t hi nki ng t hat t he Booker panelmi ght wel l "' change i t s col l ect i ve mi nd' " i n l i ght of Cast l eman.See Rodr guez- Pacheco, 475 F. 3d at 442 ( quot i ng Wi l l i ams, 45 F. 3dat 592) . Nonet hel ess, we need not deci de t oday whet her , i n l i ght

of Cast l eman, a convi ct i on under t he " r eckl essl y" pr ong of t heMai ne st at ut e sat i sf i es t he "use or at t empt ed use of physi calf or ce" r equi r ement f or pur poses of 922( g) ( 9) , as t he under l yi ngdocument s may ul t i matel y show t hat Cart er ' s convi ct i on was underone of t he ot her t wo mens- r ea pr ongs of t he st at ut e - -"i nt ent i onal l y" or "knowi ngl y. " See Me. Rev. St at . t i t . 17- A, 207( 1) ( A) ; Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . at 1414- 15.

-23-


24/29

a di vi si bl e st at ut e. J ohnson, 559 U. S. at 144; see al so Cast l eman,

134 S. Ct . at 1414; Descamps, 133 S. Ct . at 2281; Shepard v. Uni t ed

St at es, 544 U. S. 13, 26 ( 2005) ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) ; Tayl or , 495

U. S. at 602. I n t hi s cont ext , "t he f act s under l yi ng t he convi ct i on

ar e r el evant . . . onl y t o i dent i f y whi ch cr i me i s t he cr i me of

convi cti on wher e ( as i s of t en t r ue wi t h di vi si bl e st at ut es) i t i s

uncl ear whi ch subsumed of f ense the def endant pl ed t o or was f ound

t o have vi ol at ed. " Campbel l v. Hol der , 698 F. 3d 29, 33 ( 1st Ci r .

2012) .

Wher e, as her e, t he ear l i er st at e convi ct i on i nvol ved a

gui l t y pl ea, "t he r ecor d of convi ct i on wi l l consi st mai nl y of t he

char gi ng document , wr i t t en pl ea agr eement , and t r anscr i pt of t he

change- of - pl ea col l oquy. " Uni t ed St at es v. Tur bi des- Leonar do, 468

F. 3d 34, 39 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . I n addi t i on t o t hese "appr oved"

r ecor ds, 12 a f ederal cour t may al so consi der "some comparabl e

j udi ci al r ecor d, " Uni t ed Stat es v. Far r el l , 672 F. 3d 27, 30 ( 1st

Ci r . 2012) , or "any expl i ci t f actual f i ndi ng by t he t r i al j udge t o

whi ch t he def endant assent ed, " Shepard, 544 U. S. at 16.

However , " t he i nf or mat i on used t o char act er i ze t he

put at i ve pr edi cat e of f ense must be ' conf i ned t o [ t he] r ecor ds of

t he convi ct i ng cour t . ' " Tur bi des- Leonar do, 468 F. 3d at 39 ( quot i ng

12 These document s - - i ncl udi ng t he i ndi ct ment , pl ea col l oquy, andj ury i nst r uct i ons - - ar e somet i mes cal l ed "Shepar d document s. " SeeUni t ed St at es v. Mouscar dy, 722 F. 3d 68, 77 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ; Uni t edSt at es v. Har t , 674 F. 3d 33, 41 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ; see al so Shepar d,544 U. S. at 26; Tayl or , 495 U. S. at 602.

-24-


25/29

Shepar d, 544 U. S. at 23) . I n t he subsequent f eder al pr oceedi ng,

t he di st r i ct cour t avoi ds under t aki ng an i ndependent evi dent i ar y

i nqui r y - - out si de of t he r ecor d of convi ct i on - - i nt o t he f actual

basi s f or t he pr edi cat e st at e of f ense. See Shepar d, 544 U. S. at

20; Uni t ed St at es v. Gi ggey, 551 F. 3d 27, 40 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ;

Turbi des- Leonar do, 468 F. 3d at 39 ( " [ A] n i nqui r i ng cour t cannot

r et r y t he or i gi nal case but , r at her , must r est r i ct i t s pr obi ng t o

t he r ecor d of convi ct i on. " ) . Ther ef or e, cour t s may not r el y on t he

pol i ce r epor t s r el at ed t o t he ear l i er convi ct i on. Shepar d, 544

U. S. at 16; Far r el l , 672 F. 3d at 30. 13 Si mi l ar l y, "' a pr esent ence

r epor t i n a subsequent case or di nar i l y may not be used t o pr ove t he

det ai l s of t he of f ense conduct t hat under l i es a pr i or convi ct i on. ' "

Dvi l a- Fl i x, 667 F. 3d at 57 ( quot i ng Tur bi des- Leonar do, 468 F. 3d

at 39) .

Thus, t o det er mi ne whi ch subsumed of f ense under Mai ne' s

assaul t st at ut e f or med t he basi s f or Car t er ' s gui l t y pl ea and

convi ct i on, we l ook t o t he rel evant "appr oved" document s f r om t he

r ecor d of t hat ear l i er assaul t convi ct i on. See, e. g. , Har t , 674

F. 3d at 41; Far r el l , 672 F. 3d at 30. Those document s i n t he r ecor d

13 See al so Uni t ed St at es v. Bear dsl ey, 691 F. 3d 252, 272 ( 2d Ci r .2012) ( " [ W] hi l e l ooki ng t o pol i ce r epor t s and ot her hear say

account s of t he under l yi ng conduct l eadi ng t o t he convi ct i on woul dbe danger ous - - si nce that i nf or mat i on was never submi t t ed t o aj ury, or f or mal l y admi t t ed by t he def endant - - and woul d l ead t ot i me- consumi ng f act - f i ndi ng vent ur es by sent enci ng cour t s, l ooki ngt o t he f or mal document s r el at ed t o t he case, as i s per mi t t ed wher et he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach appl i es, woul d not seem t opr esent t hose pr obl ems. " ) .

-25-


26/29

cur r ent l y bef or e us ar e i nconcl usi ve. Car t er i nt r oduced ei ght

pages of r ecor ds per t ai ni ng t o t he r el evant assaul t convi ct i on i n

Mai ne st at e cour t . 14 These r ecor ds i ncl ude t he I nf or mat i on dat ed

Apr i l 1, 1997; a docket sheet per t ai ni ng t o t he case, whi ch

i ncl udes cer t ai n mi nut es of t he pr oceedi ngs bef or e the Mai ne st at e

cour t and t he cour t ' s j udgment ; and t he Knox Count y Sher i f f ' s

Depar t ment i nci dent r epor t , i ncl udi ng t he ar r est i ng of f i cer ' s

nar r at i ve and t he vi ct i m' s st at ement .

The f or mer t wo document s - - t he I nf or mat i on and t he

docket sheet - - are of no use here i n determi ni ng whi ch subsumed

of f ense f or med t he basi s of Car t er ' s pr i or assaul t convi ct i on. 15

The l at t er document - - t he pol i ce i nci dent r epor t - - mi ght i ncl ude

suf f i ci ent det ai l s t o make such a det er mi nat i on, but we ar e

pr ecl uded f r omusi ng i t f or t hat pur pose. See, e. g. , Shepar d, 544

U. S. at 16 ( when appl yi ng t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach, cour t s

may not r el y on t he pol i ce r epor t s under l yi ng t he ear l i er

14 These r ecords were appended both as an addendum t o Car t er ' sappel l at e br i ef and as exhi bi t s t o hi s or i gi nal mot i on t o di smi sst he i ndi ct ment bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t .

15 The I nf or mat i on mer el y r est at es t he al t er nat i ve el ement s of t hedi vi si bl e st at ut e: "Wayne Car t er di d i nt ent i onal l y, knowi ngl y orr eckl essl y cause bodi l y i nj ur y or of f ensi ve physi cal cont act t o

Angi e Eagan. " Thus, t he I nf or mat i on does not hel p di st i ngui shwhi ch mens rea pr ong f or ms the basi s of Car t er ' s convi ct i on. Asr el evant her e, t he docket sheet st at es t hat Car t er was ar r ai gnedand "wai ved r eadi ng, pl ea - - gui l t y, " and t hen was adj udged t o be"gui l t y of Assaul t , Cl ass D ( 17- A 207) as char ged and convi ct ed. "The docket sheet does not provi de f ur t her det ai l s r egar di ngCar t er ' s gui l t y pl ea and convi ct i on.

-26-


27/29

convi ct i on) ; Far r el l , 672 F. 3d at 30 ( same) ; Bear dsl ey, 691 F. 3d at

272 ( same) . I n t he r ecor d bef or e us, t her e i s no evi dence

r egar di ng a pl ea col l oquy, pl ea agr eement , or any f i ndi ngs of f act

by t he Mai ne st at e cour t . I t i s not cl ear whet her a t r anscr i pt of

t he pl ea col l oquy exi st s, whet her a wr i t t en pl ea agr eement i s

avai l abl e, whet her t he st at e cour t made any f i ndi ngs of f act , or

whet her t her e ar e any ot her "approved" Shepard document s or

compar abl e j udi ci al r ecor ds avai l abl e wi t h r espect t o Car t er ' s

pr i or assaul t convi ct i on. See Shepar d, 544 U. S. at 26; Tayl or , 495

U. S. at 602; Mouscar dy, 722 F. 3d at 77. Thus, on t he Shepard

document s cur r ent l y bef or e us, t he r ecor d i s i nsuf f i ci ent l y

devel oped t o determi ne whi ch var i ant of t he Mai ne general - pur pose

assaul t st at ut e ser ved as t he basi s f or Car t er ' s convi ct i on.

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed Car t er ' s mot i on t o di smi ss on

t hi s i ssue i n a one- sent ence or der based on our deci si on i n Booker ,

r easoni ng t hat Booker " serves as bi ndi ng and cont r ol l i ng pr ecedent

f or t he i ssues pr esent ed i n Def endant ' s Mot i on. " Gi ven t hat - - at

t he t i me - - Booker and Nason t oget her est abl i shed t hat ever y

var i ant of t he Mai ne gener al - pur pose assaul t st at ut e coul d

const i t ut e a "mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence, " see Booker ,

644 F. 3d at 21; Nason, 269 F. 3d at 11- 12, 21, i t i s under st andabl e

t hat t he par t i es f ai l ed t o pr of f er addi t i onal Shepar d document s.

Cf . , e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Hol l oway, 630 F. 3d 252, 263 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) ( "At t he t i me t he government had t he oppor t uni t y to i nt r oduce

-27-


28/29

Shepard t ype document s beyond the i ndi ct ment al one t o support i t s

t heor y but di d not do so. Because, however , bot h t he gover nment

and t he di st r i ct cour t s wer e oper at i ng on t he pr emi se t hat Mangos

r emai ned good l aw, t he f ai l ur e t o pr of f er such evi dence was mor e

t han underst andabl e. " ) . As such document s may exi st , we t hi nk i t

appr opr i at e t o r emand t he case t o t he di st r i ct cour t t o al l ow t he

par t i es t o f ur t her devel op t he r ecor d on t hi s i ssue.

Accor di ngl y, we vacat e Car t er ' s convi ct i on and t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of hi s or i gi nal mot i on t o di smi ss t he

i ndi ct ment , and we r emand t he case f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs

consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on and i n l i ght of t he Supr eme Cour t ' s

opi ni on i n Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . 1405, and i t s vacat i on of our

j udgment i n Ar mst r ong, see 82 U. S. L. W. 3566. Cf . Hol l oway, 630

F. 3d at 263 ( vacat i ng t he appel l ant s' sent ences, r emandi ng f or

r esent enci ng, and r easoni ng t hat " [ u] nder t he ci r cumst ances, we

per cei ve no unf ai r ness i n al l owi ng t he gover nment t he oppor t uni t y

t o pur sue bot h . . . t heor i es on r emand, usi ng Shepard appr oved

document s" ) .

C. Sporting/Collection Exception Under the Sentencing Guidelines

Gi ven t hat we ar e vacat i ng Car t er ' s convi ct i on, we need

not r each hi s argument s r egar di ng t he appl i cat i on of t he Sent enci ng

Gui del i nes. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Camer on, 699 F. 3d 621, 653

( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( "Because we must r ever se Camer on' s convi ct i on wi t h

r espect t o si x count s, we need not r each hi s sent enci ng chal l enge

-28-


29/29

at t hi s t i me. ") ; Uni t ed St at es v. Rosa- Or t i z, 348 F. 3d 33, 36 n. 5

( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( "Because we hol d t hat RosaOr t i z' s conduct was not

a cr i me wi t hi n t he st at ut e of convi ct i on, however , we do not r each

t he sent enci ng i ssue. ") .

III. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we af f i r mt he di st r i ct cour t ' s

deni al of Car t er ' s suppl ement al mot i on t o di smi ss t he i ndi ct ment on

const i t ut i onal gr ounds; we vacat e hi s convi ct i on and t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s deni al of hi s or i gi nal mot i on t o di smi ss t he i ndi ct ment on

st at ut or y gr ounds; and we remand t he case t o the di st r i ct cour t f or

f ur t her pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on and i n l i ght of

t he Supr eme Cour t ' s opi ni on i n Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . 1405, and i t s

vacat i on of our j udgment i n Ar mst r ong, see 82 U. S. L. W. 3566.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

-29-

Date post:	02-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scribd-government-docs
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times