United States v. Matthew Olsson, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2600

Matthew R. Olsson had a prior conviction under Missouri second-degree burglary, which the government used to seek a sentencing enhancement as a "crime of violence."
Missouri second-degree burglary statute: knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or inhabitable structure with intent to commit a crime. (Mo. Rev. Stat. §569.170.)
Olsson was sentenced with an enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines; the parties disputed whether his prior burglary conviction qualified under the categorical approach.
The Eighth Circuit panel opinion was vacated and remanded by the U.S. Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Descamps v. United States.
On remand the Eighth Circuit applied the categorical approach, compared Missouri burglary’s elements to generic burglary, and concluded the offenses are congruent; the prior conviction therefore qualifies as a "crime of violence."
The court also reinstated its prior rulings that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting Olsson’s cross-examination of government witnesses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Missouri 2d-degree burglary is a "crime of violence" under the categorical approach	Olsson argued the statute could cover conduct broader than generic burglary and thus not qualify	Government argued the statute's elements match generic burglary and therefore qualify as a crime of violence	The court held the statute's elements align with generic burglary; prior conviction qualifies as a crime of violence
Whether Descamps requires a categorical analysis here	Olsson contended Descamps restricted enhancement reliance when elements are indivisible	Government contended Descamps applies and supports categorical comparison of elements	Court applied Descamps and used the categorical approach because the statute has a single, indivisible set of elements
Whether prior convictions met Guidelines threshold for enhancement	Olsson contested use of the burglary conviction for enhancement	Government noted Olsson conceded a prior controlled-substance conviction and argued burglary conviction also qualifies	Court found Olsson has at least two qualifying priors (including conceded drug conviction) and upheld enhancement
Whether district court abused discretion limiting cross-examination	Olsson argued his confrontation/cross-examination rights were violated	Government defended the district court's limits as within discretion	Court reinstated prior holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion

Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (categorical approach required where predicate statute has a single, indivisible set of elements)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (definition of generic burglary for categorical comparison)
Olsson v. United States, 713 F.3d 441 (8th Cir.) (panel opinion on conviction and cross-examination rulings)
Olsson v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 530 (2013) (Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated and remanded for consideration in light of Descamps)
United States v. Vinton, 631 F.3d 476 (8th Cir. 2011) (treating ACCA "violent felony" authority as analogous to Guidelines "crime of violence")