United States v. Robert Daniels, 701 F. App'x 524

Defendant Robert J. Daniels pled guilty to conspiracy to receive and possess a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 922(g)(1) and faced sentencing under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4) based on a prior felony conviction.
The prior conviction (2008, Missouri) was for assault of a law enforcement officer in the second degree, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.082 (2008); state records did not specify which statutory subsection was the basis for the plea.
At the state plea hearing the prosecutor described two counts: (1) "knowingly caused serious physical injury… by means of a dangerous instrument" and (2) "attempted to kill or knowingly attempted to cause physical injury… by attempting to hit him with an automobile;" defendant admitted the facts.
At federal sentencing the district court acknowledged the prosecutor’s recitation was somewhat conflated but concluded the plea corresponded to subsection 1(1) (knowingly causing physical injury by a dangerous instrument), applied the enhanced base offense level, and sentenced Daniels to 40 months.
On appeal Daniels argued the government failed to show his prior conviction categorically qualified as a "crime of violence," so the court should have applied the categorical approach (or found ambiguous and not a qualifying conviction); the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual finding for clear error and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Daniels)	Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court)	Held
Whether Daniels' 2008 Missouri conviction qualifies as a "crime of violence" for sentencing enhancement under § 2K2.1(a)(4)	State records don’t identify the statutory subsection; plea colloquy was ambiguous — if ambiguous, apply the categorical approach, and the conviction would not qualify	The statute is divisible; court may use the modified categorical approach and reasonably infer from the plea colloquy that Daniels pleaded to subsection 1(1), which is a crime of violence	The Eighth Circuit affirmed: district court’s factual finding that the plea corresponded to § 565.082.1(1) was not clearly erroneous and reasonable inferences from the plea colloquy were permissible; enhancement stands

United States v. Dawn, 685 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2012) (explains categorical and modified categorical approaches)
United States v. Parks, 620 F.3d 911 (8th Cir. 2010) (same; use of plea colloquy under the modified categorical approach)
Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) (negligent conduct is not a "crime of violence")
United States v. Rosa, 507 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2007) (discusses standard of review for documents a district court may rely on)
United States v. Twiggs, 678 F.3d 671 (8th Cir. 2012) (factual determinations about the nature of prior convictions reviewed for clear error)
United States v. Thomas, 838 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2016) (courts may make reasonable inferences from state court records to identify statutory subdivisions)
United States v. Ossana, 679 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2012) (supports using plea colloquy and comparable records under the modified categorical approach)