United States v. Raupp
677 F.3d 756
| 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 applied two offense levels under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) based on Raupp having two prior crimes of violence.
- Application Note 1 to § 2K2.1 equates 'crime of violence' with the meaning used in § 4B1.1/4B1.2, including inchoate offenses.
- Raupp was convicted in Indiana of conspiring to violate Indiana's robbery statute (Ind. Code §§ 35-41-5-2, 35-42-5-1).
- Raupp argued Begay v. United States superseded the note, insisting conspiracy is not a 'crime of violence' under the Guidelines.
- The Seventh Circuit majority affirmed, treating the note as a valid gloss on the Guidelines, making Raupp’s sentence final.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is conspiracy to commit robbery a crime of violence under the Guidelines? | Raupp: note broadens beyond text; Begay nullifies it. | US: note expands the category to include conspiracies as 'crime of violence'. | Affirmed; note controls, conspiracy included |
Key Cases Cited
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (limits ACCA violent-felony scope; informs US v. Woods/Templeton line)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007) (attempted burglary can be a violent felony under ACCA)
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (application notes treated as authoritative glosses on Guidelines)
- United States v. Woods, 576 F.3d 400 (2009) (textual identity between Guidelines language and ACCA language can be treated alike)
- Templeton v. United States, 543 F.3d 378 (2008) (identical-text approach to Guidelines and ACCA language)
- Kawashima v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 1166 (2012) (treats aiding and abetting similarly to underlying substantive offense)