707 F. App'x 461
9th Cir.2017Background
- Tony Biddles, on supervised release, committed kidnapping and robbery in California and was found to have violated supervised-release conditions.
- The district court treated Biddles’ California Penal Code § 211 (robbery) conviction as a "crime of violence," categorizing the supervised-release violation as Grade A and setting a 24–30 month advisory range.
- The court varied downward to a 15‑month prison sentence based on Biddles’ criminal history, disrespect for the law, risk of recidivism, and the need to protect the public.
- The district court also imposed standard drug‑testing and drug‑treatment conditions on the subsequent term of supervised release.
- On appeal, Biddles challenged (1) whether § 211 is categorically a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines Commentary; (2) the adequacy of the district court’s explanation for the downward variance; and (3) the imposition of drug testing/treatment conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Biddles' Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cal. Penal Code § 211 is a "crime of violence" for supervised‑release grading | § 211 is not categorically a crime of violence; various challenges to treating the Commentary as binding or to prior circuit precedent | Prior Ninth Circuit precedent treats § 211 as categorically robbery or extortion; Commentary and application note support treating robbery as a crime of violence | Affirmed: § 211 is a crime of violence under the Guideline/Commentary as previously decided by this circuit |
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by not explaining why it did not vary further downward from 15 months | Court should have explained why it did not impose an even lower sentence (substantive‑reasonableness style argument) | Court provided adequate reasons (criminal history, disrespect for law, deterrence, public protection) sufficient for appellate review | Affirmed: explanation was sufficient; no procedural error |
| Whether mandatory drug‑testing condition was improper | Drug‑testing and treatment condition may be unwarranted absent recent drug use; court should have suspended condition given record | Drug testing is generally mandatory under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); district court could suspend but reasonably declined given history | Partly vacated/remanded: drug‑testing condition stayed? The court vacated the drug‑treatment condition (no evidence of recent use; government waived defense) and remanded to strike it |
| Validity/binding effect of the Commentary inclusion of robbery as a crime of violence (concurring doubt) | (Concurring judge) Doubts whether Commentary can be binding if it interprets deleted or unsupported Guideline text; Johnson‑style concerns about residual clauses | Majority applies binding Ninth Circuit precedent and Stinson to treat Commentary as interpretive and binding | Concurrence: Judge Reinhardt doubts the Commentary’s validity as binding on the robbery point but concurs in the disposition except for that doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (categorical approach to offense elements)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (limits modified categorical approach)
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (when Commentary is binding)
- Carty v. United States, 520 F.3d 984 (appellate review standard for sentence explanations)
- Becerril‑Lopez v. United States, 541 F.3d 881 (Ninth Circuit treating § 211 as robbery/extortion)
- United States v. Dreyer, 804 F.3d 1266 (sentencing and supervised‑release principles)
- United States v. Lloyd, 807 F.3d 1128 (argument referenced re: substantive‑reasonableness review)
- United States v. Carter, 159 F.3d 397 (drug‑testing as standard supervised‑release condition)