United States v. Dominic Kosmes
792 F.3d 973
8th Cir.2015Background
- Kosmes, a Micronesian citizen, pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. §1326(a).
- District court applied a 16-level enhancement under §2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) due to a prior crime of violence conviction.
- Prior Guam manslaughter conviction (1997) involved reckless conduct, resulting in a 10-year sentence in Guam.
- At sentencing Kosmes argued the Guam manslaughter statute’s recklessness does not meet the generic federal manslaughter mens rea.
- District court held reckless manslaughter qualifies as a crime of violence under §2L1.2 and imposed the 16-level enhancement, yielding an advisory range of 46–57 months and a 30-month sentence.
- Kosmes appeals, challenging the mens rea standard for generic federal manslaughter and its application to his Guam conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the generic federal manslaughter mens rea under the Guidelines? | Kosmes contends it requires intent, not recklessness. | Government contends recklessness suffices. | Generic manslaughter includes recklessness or intentional under EMD. |
| Does Kosmes's Guam manslaughter fit the generic definition under §2L1.2? | Guam reckless manslaughter should be excluded if only recklessness is required. | Recklessness meets the generic standard; Guam offense qualifies. | Kosmes's Guam manslaughter qualifies as a crime of violence under §2L1.2. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Roblero-Ramirez, 716 F.3d 1122 (8th Cir. 2013) (defines categorical approach and that a state offense matches only if it necessarily fits the generic offense)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (S. Ct. 2013) (explains categorical matching with generic definition)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1989) (guides defining generic offenses by modern state usage)
- United States v. Armijo, 651 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2011) (held generic manslaughter requires intentional conduct)
- United States v. Peterson, 629 F.3d 432 (4th Cir. 2011) (manslaughter could be recklessness or intentional)
- United States v. Ossana, 638 F.3d 895 (8th Cir. 2011) (limited to reckless driving; not controlling on recklessness generally)
- United States v. Gomez-Leon, 545 F.3d 777 (9th Cir. 2008) (recognizes recklessness as part of modern manslaughter)
- United States v. Malagon-Soto, 764 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2014) (recklessness is the minimum mens rea discussed; does not resolve broader question)