501 F. App'x 499
6th Cir.2012Background
- Wilson pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense.
- The district court applied the career offender enhancement based on two predicate offenses, one being a Michigan obstruction conviction under § 750.81d(1).
- The government introduced Wilson’s plea colloquy showing vehicular flight as part of the obstruction offense.
- The district court treated the obstruction conviction as a crime of violence under the career offender guidelines, relying on Sykes v. United States.
- Wilson contends the Michigan obstruction statute does not qualify as a crime of violence and thus cannot support the enhancement.
- This court vacates and remands for resentencing, holding the obstruction conviction does not meet the crime-of-violence standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 750.81d(1) obstruction qualify as a crime of violence for career offender | Wilson: obstruction under §750.81d(1) is not a crime of violence | Government: Sykes supports broader interpretation to include vehicular flight | Obstruction does not qualify; vacate and remand |
| Was the misclassification of obstruction as a crime of violence preservable and reviewable | Defense objected; preserved de novo review | Government argues plain-error not met | Objection preserved; plain-error review confirms misclassification |
Key Cases Cited
- Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (redefines residual clause for violent felonies in ACCA context)
- United States v. Mosley, 575 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2009) (obstruction under § 750.81d(1) not a crime of violence)
- United States v. Gibbs, 626 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 2010) (Shepard-based approach to determine nature of prior offense)
- United States v. Ford, 560 F.3d 420 (6th Cir. 2009) (categorical approach focuses on statutory definition)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (Sup. Ct. 2005) (requires using documents to establish offense necessarily)
- United States v. Wynn, 579 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2009) (preserved objections support de novo review of scoring)