United States v. Edling
895 F.3d 1153
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- Defendant Hans Edling pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- The district court treated three prior Nevada convictions as "crimes of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a): assault with a deadly weapon, robbery, and coercion, which increased his Guidelines base level.
- Edling appealed, arguing none of those Nevada convictions qualify as a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines' elements or enumerated-offenses clauses.
- The Ninth Circuit applied the categorical (and where necessary modified categorical) approach to compare Nevada statutory elements to the Guideline definition of "crime of violence."
- The panel concluded assault with a deadly weapon is a categorical match, but Nevada robbery and felony coercion are not, and therefore vacated Edling’s sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Edling's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nevada assault with a deadly weapon is a "crime of violence" under the elements clause | Assault does not necessarily require the use of violent physical force | Assault with deadly weapon puts victim in apprehension of bodily harm and thus involves violent physical force | Held: Qualifies under elements clause — categorical match |
| Whether Nevada robbery is a "crime of violence" under § 4B1.2(a) | Nevada robbery can be based on threats to property, so it is broader than "physical force against the person" | Robbery is listed in enumerated clause, so prior robbery conviction should count | Held: Does not qualify — statute sweeps to threats to property; not a categorical match under elements or enumerated (generic robbery) clauses |
| Whether Nevada robbery falls within the Guidelines' revised definition of "extortion" (enumerated clause) | Extortion definition still covers threats to property, so Nevada robbery could qualify | The 2016 amendment defines extortion in terms of physical injury, suggesting person-focused threats | Held: The 2016 definition is limited to threats/force against persons (not property); ambiguity resolved for defendant by rule of lenity |
| Whether Nevada felony coercion is a "crime of violence" under the elements clause | The felony coercion requires "physical force or the immediate threat of physical force," so it qualifies | Government: felony coercion involves physical force and thus counts as violent physical force against persons | Held: Does not qualify — Nevada case law shows coercion convictions can rest on force/threats directed at objects or property, so it does not necessarily require violent physical force against a person |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) ("physical force" means violent force capable of causing pain or injury)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (modified categorical approach when statute divisible)
- Simmons v. United States, 782 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 2015) (use of categorical approach to determine "crime of violence")
- Molinar v. United States, 881 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2018) (categorical approach and "least of the acts" analysis)
- Becerril-Lopez v. Holder, 541 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2008) (definition of generic robbery requires danger to the person)
- Harris v. United States, 572 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2009) (prior decision treating Nevada robbery as covered under generic extortion pre-2016 amendment)
- Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) ("realistic probability" test for categorical approach)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenge under Due Process Clause)
- O'Connor v. United States, 874 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2017) (interpreting 2016 extortion definition as excluding threats to property)
- Gutierrez v. United States, 876 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 2017) (threatening bodily harm entails violent physical force)