United States v. Raupp
2012 WL 752389
7th Cir.2012Background
- Raupp pleaded guilty to felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- District court classified Raupp as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 due to two prior felonies for crimes of violence.
- Raupp’s two qualifying priors included a state conspiracy to commit robbery conviction under Ind. Code §§ 35-41-5-2, 35-42-5-1.
- The question on appeal: whether conspiracy to commit robbery qualifies as a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a).
- Guideline note to § 4B1.2 defines “crime of violence” to include inchoate offenses like conspiracy if the underlying offense is a crime of violence.
- The majority AFFIRMED Raupp’s career-offender designation and sentence; Judge Wood dissented, arguing conspiracy to commit robbery should not be treated as a crime of violence under the Guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conspiracy to commit robbery is a crime of violence under § 4B1.2(a). | United States argues conspiracy treated like attempt/abetting under the Guideline. | Raupp contends inchoate conspiracy is not a crime of violence under the Guideline and Begay undermines the note. | Yes; the note renders conspiracy a crime of violence, upholding the career-offender designation. |
| Whether the first application note to § 4B1.2 conflicts with the Guideline text. | Government says note is consistent with text and supports treating conspiracies as crimes of violence. | Raupp argues note broadens beyond text and conflicts with Begay and the Guideline. | Note is an authoritative gloss; not conflict with text given Begay’s framework. |
| Whether Begay supersedes the 4B1.2 application note for deciding “crime of violence.” | Begay does not negate the Guideline note and its textual equivalence to ACCA. | Raupp argues Begay requires excluding conspiracy from 4B1.2(A) as not violent. | Begay does not control the Guideline’s note; note remains authoritative for this issue. |
| Whether conspiracy should be treated the same as attempt under the Guidelines for career-offender purposes. | Government contends similarity supports treating conspiracy as “crime of violence.” | Raupp argues policy differences warrant separate treatment from attempt. | Court declines to resolve a policy-based distinction here; upholds majority approach linking to note. |
| Whether Raupp’s sentence may stand given the career-offender calculation. | The district court correctly applied § 4B1.1 with a two-prior-conviction trigger. | Sentence could be outside Commission’s preferred range but is permissible; challenge is to classification. | Affirmed Raupp’s career-offender status and sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (limits ACCA violent-felony scope; informs inchoate-offense treatment)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007) (attempts may be violent felonies; risk-based approach; informs inchoate offenses)
- Woods v. Templeton, 576 F.3d 400 (7th Cir. 2009) (identical language in Guidelines and ACCA yields identical interpretation (to extent applicable))
- United States v. Templeton, 543 F.3d 378 (7th Cir. 2008) (treats text as bearing on interpretation; captions not controlling)
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (application notes treated as agency interpretation with controlling weight)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (deference to agency interpretations of its own regulations (Auer))