United States v. Ormond
5:16-cr-00080
E.D.N.C.Apr 7, 2017Background
- Defendant William Lachlian Ormond pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924). PSR set total offense level at 19 (base level 22) and sentencing range 37–46 months.
- PSR applied U.S.S.G. §2K2.1(a)(3) (base level 22) because of a prior North Carolina conviction for "Assault With a Deadly Weapon Inflicting Serious Injury" (AWDWISI), treating that prior as a "crime of violence."
- Ormond objected, arguing AWDWISI does not qualify as a "crime of violence" under §4B1.2(a); the district court initially sustained the objection, later accepted the PSR, then at final sentencing (April 5, 2017) again sustained Ormond's objection.
- The legal question turned on whether AWDWISI qualifies under §4B1.2(a)(1) ("use of physical force") or §4B1.2(a)(2) (enumerated offenses — e.g., aggravated assault).
- The court applied the 2016 Guidelines manual (the version in effect at sentencing) and concluded AWDWISI is not a crime of violence under either the use-of-force clause or the enumerated-offense clause; thus base level 20 under §2K2.1(a)(4)(B) applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AWDWISI qualifies as a "crime of violence" under §4B1.2(a)(1) (use of physical force) | Govt: AWDWISI involves use of force and thus qualifies | Ormond: AWDWISI lacks the required mens rea (purposeful/knowing); statute permits conviction on negligence/recklessness | Held: Not a crime of violence under (a)(1); statute lacks the required specific intent; court follows Leocal/Vinson/Geddie reasoning |
| Whether AWDWISI is an enumerated offense (aggravated assault) under §4B1.2(a)(2) | Govt: AWDWISI is functionally aggravated assault | Ormond: Enumerated "aggravated assault" requires more than recklessness; AWDWISI can be satisfied by lesser mens rea | Held: Not an enumerated aggravated assault; Fourth Circuit precedent requires more than recklessness (Barcenas-Yanez) |
| Which Guidelines version governs (2013 w/residual clause vs 2016) | Govt/others relied on earlier decisions applying the older Guidelines or residual clause | Ormond: 2016 Guidelines (in effect at sentencing) should apply and are more favorable | Held: 2016 Guidelines apply (more favorable); residual-clause reasoning in prior district opinion (Hakeem Johnson) was erroneous for sentencing after the Guidelines change |
Key Cases Cited
- Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (interpreting "use of physical force" to require higher than negligent intent) (use-of-force mens rea requirement)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 ("physical force" means violent force capable of causing pain or injury) (definition of physical force)
- United States v. Vinson, 805 F.3d 120 (4th Cir. 2015) (recklessness insufficient for "crime of violence") (mens rea precedent)
- United States v. Barcenas-Yanez, 826 F.3d 752 (4th Cir. 2016) ("aggravated assault" as an enumerated offense requires more than recklessness) (enumerated-offense mens rea)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013) (guidelines-version selection principle; compare Guidelines versions when favorable)
- United States v. Geddie, 125 F. Supp. 3d 592 (E.D.N.C. 2015) (AWDWISI lacks specific intent; not a violent felony/crime of violence under comparable standards) (district-court precedent relied on by this court)