United States v. Ashford Spencer
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15397
9th Cir.2013Background
- Spencer was convicted of two federal drug-trafficking felonies and later sentenced as a career offender under § 4B1.1 based on two prior convictions for crimes of violence.
- The district court categorized Spencer’s Hawaii § 708-820(1)(a) criminal property damage in the first degree as a crime of violence under § 4B1.2(a)(2).
- One priors relied on for career offender status was functionally criminal property damage in the first degree under Hawaii law; the other was kidnapping/robbery (second degree).
- The district court rejected the probation office’s initial recommendation and held that § 708-820(1)(a) categorically constitutes a crime of violence.
- Applying the career-offender enhancement raised Spencer’s guideline range; the sentence imposed was 204 months, within the range but influenced by the enhancement.
- Spencer challenged both the categorization of § 708-820(1)(a) as a crime of violence and the residual-clause vagueness of § 4B1.2(a)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §708-820(1)(a) is a crime of violence | Spencer argues it is not a crime of violence. | United States argues it is categorically a crime of violence under the residual clause. | Yes; §708-820(1)(a) is a crime of violence under §4B1.2(a)(2). |
| Whether the residual clause §4B1.2(a)(2) is void for vagueness | Residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. | Residual clause is not vague, citing ACCA precedent. | Not vague; residual clause is constitutionally valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Park, 649 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2011) (framework for analyzing state offenses under the residual clause)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (U.S. 2007) (ordinary-case risk framework for residual clause analysis)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (limited Begay’s test to strict-liability/negligence/recklessness crimes for ACCA residual clause)
- Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (U.S. 2009) (applied Begay's reasoning to residual clause interpretation)
- Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (S. Ct. 2011) (emphasized risk-based comparison to enumerated offenses; clarified Begay scope)
- United States v. Crews, 621 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2010) (definitive de novo review of crime-of-violence determination under §4B1.2(a))