United States v. Jenkins
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1924
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Jenkins pleaded guilty to crack cocaine distribution and felon-in-possession of a firearm, with a district court sentence enhanced as a career offender.
- The Probation Office recommended a career-offender designation based in part on Jenkins's 1998 Maryland common-law Resisting Arrest conviction.
- The district court relied on an unpublished Fourth Circuit decision (Mullen) to treat resisting arrest as a crime of violence for the enhancement and sentenced Jenkins to 188 months.
- Jenkins objected at sentencing that resisting arrest is not a crime of violence under 4B1.2(a)(2).
- On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviews de novo whether resisting arrest qualifies as a crime of violence under the Guidelines.
- Key issue is whether Begay and Chambers undermine Wardrick’s conclusion that resisting arrest is a crime of violence for career-offender purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resisting arrest is a crime of violence under 4B1.2(a)(2). | Jenkins contends Wardrick is no longer controlling after Begay/Chambers. | The district court correctly treated resisting arrest as a crime of violence based on Wardrick. | Resisting arrest is a crime of violence because it involves intentional conduct; Wardrick remains good law after Begay/Chambers for purposes of 4B1.2(a)(2). |
| Effect of Begay/Chambers on Wardrick's precedent. | Begay/Chambers negate Wardrick's classification of resisting arrest as a crime of violence. | Begay/Chambers do not overrule Wardrick for Guidelines 4B1.2(a)(2). | Begay/Chambers do not overrule Wardrick; the residual clause analysis still supports resisting arrest as a crime of violence when committed intentionally. |
| Is the Resisting Arrest Offense categorically capable of being committed negligently or recklessly? | Resisting arrest must be intentional; supports crime-of-violence classification. | If it could be negligent, it would fail the 'purposeful' requirement. | Resisting arrest requires intentional resistance; thus it qualifies as a crime of violence under 4B1.2(a)(2). |
Key Cases Cited
- Wardrick v. United States, 350 F.3d 446 (4th Cir. 2003) (resisting arrest deemed a violent felony under ACCA)
- Begay v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 1581 (2008) (residual clause requires similarity in kind and risk to enumerated offenses)
- Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (2009) (refines Begay's approach to ‘otherwise involves’ in ACCA)
- Seay v. United States, 553 F.3d 732 (4th Cir. 2009) (applies Begay-style analysis to Guidelines 4B1.2(a)(2))
- United States v. Rivers, 595 F.3d 558 (4th Cir. 2010) (ACCA and Guidelines precedents operate in parallel)