United States v. Ryan Pouliot
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16534
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Justin Edwards and Ryan Pouliot pleaded guilty to federal firearms offenses that trigger an enhanced base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a) if the defendant has a prior "crime of violence."
- Both had prior Wisconsin convictions under Wis. Stat. § 943.10(1m)(a) for burglary of a "building or dwelling."
- At sentencing, district judges treated those prior Wisconsin burglary convictions as qualifying "burglary of a dwelling" predicates and applied an enhanced Guidelines range after consulting state charging documents.
- The defendants objected, arguing Wisconsin’s statute is broader than the Guidelines and indivisible, so the modified categorical approach (consulting charging papers) was improper.
- The Seventh Circuit applied Mathis and related precedent, examined the statute’s text and structure and the available state-court record, and concluded subsection (a) lists alternative means ("building" or "dwelling") rather than alternative elements.
- The court vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing because the Wisconsin burglary convictions could not serve as § 2K2.1(a) predicates; it also rejected Edwards’s challenge to denial of an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wisconsin burglary § 943.10(1m)(a) is divisible for the modified categorical approach | Edwards/Pouliot: Statute is indivisible; "building or dwelling" are alternative means, so charging docs cannot convert a broad statute into a Guidelines predicate | Government: Statute is divisible or, at least, charging documents showing "dwelling" establish the required predicate | Held: Statute is indivisible under Mathis; alternatives are means, not elements—charging papers were improper to establish a § 4B1.2(a)(2) predicate; resentencing required |
| Whether prior convictions under the broader Wisconsin statute qualify as "crime[s] of violence" for § 2K2.1(a) enhancement | Edwards/Pouliot: Convictions do not qualify because statute covers more conduct than the Guideline’s "burglary of a dwelling" | Government: The convictions can qualify when charging documents show dwelling was charged | Held: Because the statute is indivisible, convictions under it cannot serve as § 2K2.1(a) predicates; enhancement vacated |
| Whether district court properly consulted state charging documents / used the modified categorical approach | Defendants: Charging papers are unreliable in Wisconsin because they may allege non-elements; thus cannot be used to identify elements | Government: Shepard-documents (charging papers, plea colloquy) are permissible to identify the specific offense when statute is divisible | Held: Modified categorical approach not available because statute is indivisible; consulting charging documents was improper |
| Whether Edwards was entitled to a § 3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction | Edwards: Guilty plea, cooperation, and admissions justify the reduction despite post-release misconduct | Government: Continued criminal activity on release outweighs acceptance evidence | Held: Denial of the reduction was not clear error—the judge considered both sides and reasonably found ongoing crimes outweighed acceptance evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mathis, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (statute is divisible only when it lists alternative elements, not alternative means)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (explains modified categorical approach and limits on consulting Shepard documents)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (identifies charging papers, plea colloquy, jury instructions as limited record for modified categorical inquiry)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (categorical approach focus on statutory elements for prior convictions)
- United States v. Woods, 576 F.3d 400 (7th Cir. 2009) (applies categorical approach to Guidelines "crime of violence" determinations)