United States v. Antonio Rice
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2337
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Antonio Rice pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
- At sentencing the district court applied U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(3), using a base offense level of 22 because Rice had a prior felony conviction.
- The prior conviction was a 2006 Arkansas second-degree battery under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-202(a)(4) (causing physical injury to certain protected classes).
- The district court applied the modified categorical approach to determine Rice was convicted under subsection (a)(4) and treated that conviction as a "crime of violence."
- The court relied on United States v. Castleman to conclude causing physical injury necessarily involves the use of physical force, and on Eighth Circuit precedent defining the Guidelines' "physical force" element as "violent force."
- Rice was sentenced to 110 months (within a 92–115 month guideline range); he appealed the classification of his prior conviction as a crime of violence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rice) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arkansas second-degree battery (§ 5-13-202(a)(4)) is a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1) | Rice: Causing "physical injury" can occur without using "violent force" (eg, indirect acts like poisoning or nonforceful omissions), so the conviction does not necessarily have violent-force as an element. | Government: The statute requires causing physical injury, which necessarily involves use of physical force; Castleman confirms even indirect means constitute use of force and thus satisfies the Guidelines' element. | The panel held the conviction is a crime of violence: causing physical injury under the Arkansas statute necessarily involves violent force, so the base offense level was correctly applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Castleman, 134 S. Ct. 1405 (2014) (holding that causing bodily injury includes the use of physical force for purposes of § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii), and that indirect means can qualify)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (defining "physical force" for ACCA context as "violent force")
- United States v. Williams, 690 F.3d 1056 (8th Cir. 2012) (interpreting the Guidelines' "physical force" to mean "violent force")
- United States v. Dawn, 685 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2012) (describing the categorical and modified categorical approaches for prior-conviction analysis)
- United States v. Vinton, 631 F.3d 476 (8th Cir. 2011) (review standard for district court interpretation and application of the Guidelines)