United States v. Snyder
5 F. Supp. 3d 1258
D. Or.2014Background
- Snyder pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- The ACCA imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum if the defendant has three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses.
- At initial sentencing the court found Oregon second-degree burglary a violent felony but held an attempting-to-elude conviction was not, and sentenced Snyder to 110 months.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding attempting to elude qualified as a violent felony (relying on Sykes) and that the Oregon burglary conviction counted, remanding for the ACCA mandatory minimum.
- After the Ninth Circuit decision, the Supreme Court decided Descamps, which limited use of the modified categorical approach and abrogated Ninth Circuit precedent relied upon in Snyder.
- Applying Descamps, the district court reinstated the original 110-month sentence, holding Oregon second-degree burglary is not a violent felony for ACCA purposes; the attempting-to-elude conviction remained a violent felony under Sykes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Snyder is subject to ACCA 15-year mandatory minimum | Government: Snyder has three qualifying prior violent felonies (including OR burglary and attempting to elude) | Snyder: Oregon burglary and/or eluding do not qualify as violent felonies | Court: After Descamps, only two priors qualify; ACCA does not apply; sentence 110 months reinstated |
| Whether Oregon second-degree burglary is "generic" burglary under ACCA | Government: Oregon statute matches generic burglary elements | Snyder: Oregon statute’s broad definition of "building" sweeps beyond generic burglary | Court: Not generic; Oregon "building" includes vehicles/other structures, so elements do not match generic burglary |
| Whether Oregon burglary statute is divisible (allowing modified categorical approach) | Government: Charging documents (street address/business) identify the location so modified categorical approach applies | Snyder: Statute’s "building" is a single element; address in indictment does not narrow the statute | Court: Statute is indivisible; modified categorical approach not available for Oregon second-degree burglary |
| Whether Oregon second-degree burglary qualifies under ACCA residual clause | Government: Even if not generic, burglary still "otherwise involves conduct" posing serious potential risk | Snyder: Ordinary conduct covered by second-degree burglary (e.g., phone booths, trailers) does not present serious risk of physical injury | Court: Ordinary conduct does not present similar type/degree of risk as generic burglary; not covered by residual clause |
Key Cases Cited
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (limits use of the modified categorical approach; requires statute be divisible to consult conviction documents)
- Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (2011) (Indiana fleeing statute qualified as a violent felony under ACCA residual clause)
- United States v. Snyder, 643 F.3d 694 (9th Cir. 2011) (Ninth Circuit held Oregon burglary and eluding supported ACCA enhancement; later superseded by Descamps analysis)
- United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2007) (discusses Oregon burglary breadth relative to generic burglary)
- United States v. Mayer, 560 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) (analyzed Oregon first-degree burglary under residual clause)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (definition of "generic" burglary for categorical approach)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007) (framework for residual-clause analysis)