United States v. Steed
879 F.3d 440
| 1st Cir. | 2018Background
- Vincent Steed pleaded guilty in 2016 to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and heroin; PSR recommended career-offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. §4B1.1 based on two prior convictions (Maine drug trafficking and 2000 attempted 2nd-degree robbery in New York).
- Career-offender status would raise the guidelines range from 51–63 months (non-career) to 151–188 months (career); District Court declined to apply the enhancement and sentenced Steed to 63 months.
- District Court held the New York attempted 2nd-degree robbery did not meet the Guidelines’ force clause (requiring violent physical force) and did not reach the residual clause because the government had conceded its vagueness post-Johnson II.
- Government appealed, arguing the New York conviction qualifies as a "crime of violence" under the force clause, and alternatively under the residual clause (post-Beckles).
- First Circuit conducted categorical analysis of New York law as of 2000, examined state precedents on "purse snatching" and whether minimal force could constitute robbery, and applied plain-error review to the residual-clause argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Steed) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NY attempted 2nd-degree robbery (§160.10(2)(a)) qualifies under Guidelines' force clause | NY robbery requires more than minimal force; state precedent excludes mere purse-snatching from §160.10(2)(a) | NY law could include purse-snatching; minimal force may be enough so the statute does not categorically require violent force | Held: No. Realistic probability NY would treat minimal-snatching as robbery; conviction does not categorically meet the force clause |
| Whether conviction qualifies under Guidelines' residual clause (post-Beckles) | Residual clause is now available (Beckles) and could cover the offense | Government previously conceded residual clause vagueness; Steed argues waiver and asks plain-error review | Held: Government not entitled to relief. Court applied plain-error review and found gov't failed to meet prong four (seriously impair integrity/public reputation); residual-clause argument fails |
| Standard of review and timing of state-law inquiry | Categorical approach at time of conviction; precedents interpreting ACCA/Guidelines inform analysis | Steed stresses historical-state-law approach and government concession below | Held: Categorical/historical approach applied; Mulkern and related precedents govern; government’s concession below led to plain-error standard, which it did not satisfy |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) ("physical force" in ACCA means violent force capable of causing physical pain or injury)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (residual clause of ACCA void for vagueness)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Sentencing Guidelines' advisory residual clause not void for vagueness in the advisory Guidelines context)
- United States v. Mulkern, 854 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2017) (Maine robbery statute could be satisfied by minimal snatching; did not meet ACCA force clause)
- United States v. Ball, 870 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2017) (treatment of Guidelines' residual clause post-Beckles)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review framework)
Outcome
The First Circuit affirmed the sentence: Steed's 2000 attempted NY 2nd-degree robbery conviction does not categorically qualify under the Guidelines' force clause, and the government failed to meet the plain-error burden to invoke the residual clause to obtain resentencing.