United States v. Jason Dennis McGuire, 706 F.3d 1333

McGuire, intoxicated and distressed, took his father’s loaded .38 revolver and fired several shots from his driveway; police were called after he fired into a tree and down the street.
When police arrived, a helicopter was in the air with a spotlight; McGuire raised his arm and fired a round in the general direction of the helicopter.
A deputy testified McGuire fired “right toward the spotlight” where the helicopter orbited; other witnesses varied on whether he aimed at the helicopter.
McGuire testified at trial that he only intended to empty the final bullet and did not mean to hit the helicopter, while other witnesses suggested he could have fired toward the helicopter regardless of intent.
McGuire was convicted of attempting to wreck, damage, or destroy an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States under 18 U.S.C. §32(a)(1), and the court held the related firearms enhancement under §924(c) applicable; the defense argued lack of intent and mischaracterization of the helicopter’s presence.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, ruling there was sufficient evidence and that the offense is categorically a crime of violence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is there sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction for the count of attempting to damage an aircraft?	McGuire argues the evidence does not prove intent to hit the helicopter.	McGuire contends conflicting testimony shows he did not intend to strike the helicopter or even track it.	Yes; sufficient evidence supports the conviction.
Does attempting to disable an aircraft in flight qualify as a crime of violence under §924(c) on a categorical basis?	McGuire maintains the disabling version may be non-violent.	The government argues disabling an aircraft in flight entails serious risk of force or forceful confrontation.	Yes; it is a crime of violence under §924(c) and supports the firearms enhancement.
Does the special aircraft jurisdiction definition affect the analysis of the underlying offense?	Not explicitly stated by McGuire as a separate challenge.	The special aircraft jurisdiction covers aircraft in flight or about to depart with people aboard, making the offense inherently violent.	The special aircraft jurisdiction supports finding a violent offense.

United States v. Mercer, 541 F.3d 1070 (11th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence de novo in appellate review)
United States v. Chancey, 715 F.2d 543 (11th Cir. 1983) (jury issues of intent; plausible inferences favor verdict)
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (S. Ct. 2007) (requires realistic probability of statute applying to conduct within standard)
Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (S. Ct. 2004) (crime of violence involves risk of force, not mere injury; engaged with burglary analogy)
James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (S. Ct. 2007) (risk of confrontation when crime in progress; supports violence in context)
Llanos-Agostadero v. United States, 486 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2007) (categorical approach to §924(c) analysis)