UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Wayne CARTER, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 12-1499.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
April 30, 2014.
In deciding not to vary downward more than was required by the architecture of the statute of conviction, the court reached a sensible result and articulated a plausible rationale in support of that result. See United States v. Carrasco-De-Jesus, 589 F.3d 22, 30 (1st Cir.2009). The court‘s denial of a further downward variance was, therefore, comfortably within the scope of its discretion.
E. Length of Term.
In mounting his final argument, the appellant states only that the sentence he received was “improper.” This naked conclusion is insufficient to put the reasonableness of his sentence into play. “It is not enough merely to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to do counsel‘s work.” United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir.1990).
III. CONCLUSION
We need go no further. For the reasons elucidated above, we affirm the appellant‘s sentence.
Affirmed.
Renee M. Bunker, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Thomas E. Delahanty II, United States Attorney, were on brief for appellee.
Before TORRUELLA, DYK* and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge.
This criminal case comes to us on direct appeal from a final judgment entered against Defendant-Appellant Wayne Carter (“Carter“) by the United States District Court for the District of Maine. Carter was charged in a one-count indictment with possessing a firearm following a prior conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, in violation of
Carter raises three claims on appeal. First, he raises a constitutional challenge, arguing that under the Supreme Court‘s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008), the government failed to demonstrate a “reasonably close fit” between the purpose of the restriction (reducing the frequency of deaths resulting from domestic violence) and the restriction itself (in his words, “permanently dispossessing non-violent domestic misdemeanants of their Second Amendment rights“).
Second, he brings a statutory claim, arguing that commission of simple assault by recklessly causing offensive physical contact does not constitute the “use or attempted use of physical force” as required to qualify as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” and thus his prior conviction cannot serve as a valid predicate offense for purposes of
Third, Carter argues that under an exception to the relevant sentencing guideline, he was entitled to a lesser sentence because he possessed the firearm “solely for lawful sporting purposes or collection.” See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 2K2.1(b)(2) (Nov. 2011) (“USSG“).
We hold that Carter‘s constitutional claim is foreclosed by binding precedent to the contrary, but that there may be some merit to his statutory argument in light of the Supreme Court‘s recent decision in United States v. Castleman, --- U.S. ---, 134 S.Ct. 1405, 188 L.Ed.2d 426 (2014). Finding that the record is insufficiently developed on this issue, we vacate Carter‘s conviction and the district court‘s denial of his original motion to dismiss the indictment, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Accordingly, we do not reach Carter‘s arguments regarding the application of the relevant sentencing guidelines.
I. Background
A. Factual Background
On March 20, 2010, Carter pawned a rifle at the Waldoboro Trading Post in Waldoboro, Maine in exchange for a loan. After repaying the loan, he attempted to collect the rifle on April 16, 2010. In order to retake possession, he completed a records check form required by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF“). The return of the rifle was denied due to the results of the records check, which indicated that Carter had prior criminal convictions.1
Further investigation revealed, among other things, that in 1997 Carter had been convicted of a misdemeanor assault in Maine. Police records of the offense showed that on February 24, 1997, a police officer was called to Carter‘s home, where he lived with his girlfriend, Annie Eagan (“Eagan“), and her two children (at the time, one daughter was ten years old and the other daughter was four months old). Eagan told the officer that Carter had spit in her face and shoved her on her right shoulder; her account was corroborated by her ten-year-old daughter. Eagan said that she was not hurt, did not want Carter
In an Information dated April 1, 1997, the Maine state prosecutor charged that “Wayne Carter did intentionally, knowingly or recklessly cause bodily injury or offensive physical contact to Angie Eagan,” in violation of the Maine general-purpose assault statute. See
On April 30, 2010, ATF agents went to Carter‘s home, where they interviewed him regarding his attempt to collect the pawned firearm. Carter admitted that he recalled his previous conviction for assaulting Eagan.
As the investigation continued, the pawn shop‘s records also revealed that Carter had pawned and redeemed three separate rifles on multiple occasions between 2007 and 2010. In total, he pawned a firearm ten times during this period.2
B. Procedural Background
On September 22, 2010, in a one-count indictment, a grand jury charged Carter with the knowing possession of a firearm following a previous conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, in violation of
In a one-sentence order, the district court denied Carter‘s motion on the basis that United States v. Booker, 644 F.3d 12 (1st Cir.2011), “serves as binding and controlling precedent for the issues presented in Defendant‘s Motion.” Carter then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the district court‘s order on his motion to dismiss.
Subsequently, Carter filed a supplemental motion to dismiss the indictment, this time arguing that “Congress exceeded its authority in enacting
II. Discussion
A. Second Amendment Claim
In Carter‘s first claim on appeal, he renews the constitutional argument he previously raised in his supplemental motion to dismiss the indictment. Carter argues that
Carter maintains that a restriction depriving competent non-felons of their Second Amendment rights must be narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest. He asserts that “[b]ecause there is no reliable information that misdemeanants are likely to misuse firearms at a rate any greater than those not convicted of such petty crimes, the law fails constitutional muster.” In Carter‘s view, the government has not established a substantial connection between the harm sought to be avoided (a reduction in the number of deaths due to domestic violence) and the proscription enumerated in
Because Carter‘s claim raises a constitutional challenge to a federal statute, we review this Second Amendment claim de novo. See Booker, 644 F.3d at 22.
We resoundingly rejected this claim in Booker, reasoning that there cannot “be any question that there is a substantial relationship between
The appellant in Armstrong also brought a Second Amendment challenge to his
The Supreme Court‘s vacation of our judgment in Armstrong for reconsideration in light of Castleman does nothing for Carter‘s argument on this issue. See Armstrong, 134 S.Ct. at 1759, 2014 WL 1271306. The defendant in Castleman did not challenge the constitutionality of
B. The Maine Assault Statute as a Predicate Crime of Conviction
In Carter‘s second claim on appeal, he argues that the commission of a simple assault by recklessly causing offensive physical contact is inadequate to constitute a predicate conviction of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” for purposes of
1. The Statutory Framework
Carter was charged with—and conditionally pleaded guilty to—violating the Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968,
(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, or Tribal law; and
(ii) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim[.]
Carter challenges whether the Maine assault statute “has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force.” See
2. Carter‘s Statutory Arguments
Carter levies three main arguments in support of his position that reckless offensive contact (as prohibited by the Maine assault statute) does not meet the definition of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” involving “the use or attempted use of physical force” against a domestic partner. First, Carter argues that the “use or attempted use of physical force” language requires intentional, and not merely reckless, conduct. Second, even if non-violent reckless conduct is encompassed within the “use ... of physical force” language, Carter maintains that the
On several occasions, we have rejected similar challenges to
Indeed, Carter conceded in his reply brief that his arguments on this issue were foreclosed by then-binding precedent, including Armstrong, which at the time was our most recent decision affirming a
3. The Supreme Court‘s Opinion in Castleman
The defendant in Castleman pleaded guilty, in a Tennessee court, to having
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split of authority among the circuit courts of appeals. See id. at 1410 (comparing our decision in Nason, 269 F.3d at 18, which found that
In interpreting the meaning of “physical force” for purposes of
Furthermore, the Court observed that the assault or battery laws routinely used to prosecute domestic abusers, both at the time
Next, the Court examined whether Castleman‘s conviction qualified as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” Id. The Court began by querying whether the “categorical approach” articulated in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990) resolved the issue. Id. Under this approach, courts should “look to the statutory definition of the offense in question, as opposed to the particular facts underlying the conviction.” United States v. Davila-Felix, 667 F.3d 47, 56 (1st Cir.2011) (quoting United States v. Piper, 35 F.3d 611, 619 (1st Cir.1994)). If the “statutory definition” of the prior state offense necessari
The Castleman Court declined to make such a determination, however, and instead expressed its skepticism by stating that “[i]t does not appear that every type of assault defined by [the Tennessee statute] necessarily involves ‘the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon.’ ” Id. at 1413-14. For example, the Court reasoned that, under the Tennessee statute, “[a] threat ... may not necessarily involve a deadly weapon, and the merely reckless causation of bodily injury ... may not be a ‘use’ of force.” Id. at 1414.
Because the parties in Castleman did not contest that the Tennessee statute is a ” ‘divisible statute,’ ” the Court then applied the “modified categorical approach, consulting the indictment to which Castleman pleaded guilty in order to determine whether his conviction did entail the elements necessary to constitute the generic federal offense.” Id. at 1414 (citing Descamps v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 2281-82, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013)). In Castleman, the Court held, “that analysis is straightforward: Castleman pleaded guilty to having ‘intentionally or knowingly cause[d] bodily injury’ to the mother of his child, and the knowing or intentional causation of bodily injury necessarily involves the use of physical force.” Id. at 1414 (alteration in original) (internal citation omitted). The Court reasoned that “[i]t is impossible to cause bodily injury without applying force in the common-law sense,” and “the knowing or intentional application of force is a ‘use’ of force.” Id. at 1415. Therefore, the Court concluded that Castleman‘s conviction was a valid predicate offense for
4. The Modified Categorical Approach
Here, Carter does not contend that the Maine general-purpose assault statute is an “indivisible” statute. See id. at 1414; Descamps, 133 S.Ct. at 2281-82.10 Nor could he, as the Maine statute “sets out one or more elements of the offense in the alternative.” See Descamps, 133 S.Ct. at 2281; see also
The Maine general-purpose assault statute is divisible into six permutations of subsumed offenses, based on the combination of one element from each of two cate
In Booker, we further considered whether the Lautenberg Amendment requires a heightened mens rea requirement—“namely, whether the federal definition of ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’ can be read to prescribe an intentional state of mind for a qualifying predicate offense.” Booker, 644 F.3d at 18. We rejected that argument, holding that “the statutory definition of ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’ does not prescribe an intentional mens rea” and that a prior “offense with a mens rea of recklessness” may support a conviction under
However, the Supreme Court‘s recent decision in Castleman casts doubt upon this holding. See Castleman, 134 S.Ct. at 1414 & n. 8. Dictum in Castleman suggests that “the merely reckless causation of bodily injury under [the Tennessee assault statute] may not be a ‘use’ of force.” Id. at 1414. In support of this proposition, the Supreme Court noted that “the Courts of Appeals have almost uniformly held that recklessness is not sufficient” to “constitute a ‘use’ of force.” Id. at 1414 n. 8 (contrasting our holding in Booker with the holdings of the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits). Ultimately, the Court did not need to resolve the recklessness question in Castleman, because “Castleman pleaded guilty to having ‘intentionally or knowingly cause[d] bodily injury’ to the mother of his child, and the knowing or intentional causation of bodily injury necessarily involves the use of physical force.” Id. at 1414 (alteration in original) (internal citation omitted).
Based upon the Supreme Court‘s reasoning in Castleman, however, the validity of Carter‘s
5. The “Approved” Shepard Documents
To answer this question, under the modified categorical approach, we may “consult[] the trial record—including charging documents, plea agreements, transcripts of plea colloquies, findings of fact and conclusions of law from a bench trial, and jury instructions and verdict forms“—in order to “determine which statutory phrase was the basis for the conviction” under such a divisible statute. Johnson, 559 U.S. at 144, 130 S.Ct. 1265; see also Castleman, 134 S.Ct. at 1414; Descamps, 133 S.Ct. at 2281; Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 26, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005) (plurality opinion); Taylor, 495 U.S. at 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143. In this context, “the facts underlying the conviction are relevant ... only to identify which crime is the crime of conviction where (as is often true with divisible statutes) it is unclear which subsumed offense the defendant pled to or was found to have violated.” Campbell v. Holder, 698 F.3d 29, 33 (1st Cir.2012).
Where, as here, the earlier state conviction involved a guilty plea, “the record of conviction will consist mainly of the charging document, written plea agreement, and transcript of the change-of-plea colloquy.” United States v. Turbides-Leonardo, 468 F.3d 34, 39 (1st Cir.2006). In addition to these “approved” records,12 a federal court may also consider “some comparable judicial record,” United States v. Farrell, 672 F.3d 27, 30 (1st Cir.2012), or “any explicit factual finding by the trial judge to which the defendant assented,” Shepard, 544 U.S. at 16, 125 S.Ct. 1254.
However, “the information used to characterize the putative predicate offense must be ‘confined to [the] records of the convicting court.’ ” Turbides-Leonardo, 468 F.3d at 39 (quoting Shepard, 544 U.S. at 23, 125 S.Ct. 1254). In the subsequent federal proceeding, the district court avoids undertaking an independent evidentiary inquiry—outside of the record of conviction—into the factual basis for the predicate state offense. See Shepard, 544 U.S. at 20, 125 S.Ct. 1254; United States v. Giggey, 551 F.3d 27, 40 (1st Cir.2008); Turbides-Leonardo, 468 F.3d at 39 (“[A]n inquiring court cannot retry the original case but, rather, must restrict its probing
Thus, to determine which subsumed offense under Maine‘s assault statute formed the basis for Carter‘s guilty plea and conviction, we look to the relevant “approved” documents from the record of that earlier assault conviction. See, e.g., United States v. Hart, 674 F.3d 33, 41 (1st Cir.2012); Farrell, 672 F.3d at 30. Those documents in the record currently before us are inconclusive. Carter introduced eight pages of records pertaining to the relevant assault conviction in Maine state court.14 These records include the Information dated April 1, 1997; a docket sheet pertaining to the case, which includes certain minutes of the proceedings before the Maine state court and the court‘s judgment; and the Knox County Sheriff‘s Department incident report, including the arresting officer‘s narrative and the victim‘s statement.
The former two documents—the Information and the docket sheet—are of no use here in determining which subsumed offense formed the basis for Carter‘s prior assault conviction.15 The latter document—the police incident report—might include sufficient details to make such a determination, but we are precluded from using it for that purpose. See, e.g., Shepard, 544 U.S. at 16, 125 S.Ct. 1254 (when applying the modified categorical approach, courts may not rely on the police reports underlying the earlier conviction); Farrell, 672 F.3d at 30 (same); Beardsley, 691 F.3d at 272 (same). In the record before us, there is no evidence regarding a plea colloquy, plea agreement, or any findings of fact by the Maine state court. It is not clear whether a transcript of the plea colloquy exists, whether a written plea agreement is available, whether the state court made any findings of fact, or whether there are any other “approved” Shepard documents or comparable judicial records available with respect to Carter‘s prior assault conviction. See Shepard, 544 U.S. at 26, 125 S.Ct. 1254; Taylor, 495 U.S. at 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143; United States v. Mouscardy, 722 F.3d 68, 77 (1st Cir.2013). Thus, on the Shepard documents currently before us, the record is insufficiently developed to determine which vari
The district court denied Carter‘s motion to dismiss on this issue in a one-sentence order based on our decision in Booker, reasoning that Booker “serves as binding and controlling precedent for the issues presented in Defendant‘s Motion.” Given that—at the time—Booker and Nason together established that every variant of the Maine general-purpose assault statute could constitute a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” see Booker, 644 F.3d at 21; Nason, 269 F.3d at 11-12, 21, it is understandable that the parties failed to proffer additional Shepard documents. Cf., e.g., United States v. Holloway, 630 F.3d 252, 263 (1st Cir.2011) (“At the time the government had the opportunity to introduce Shepard type documents beyond the indictment alone to support its theory but did not do so. Because, however, both the government and the district courts were operating on the premise that [United States v.] Mangos, 134 F.3d 460 (1st Cir.1998)] remained good law, the failure to proffer such evidence was more than understandable.“). As such documents may exist, we think it appropriate to remand the case to the district court to allow the parties to further develop the record on this issue.
Accordingly, we vacate Carter‘s conviction and the district court‘s denial of his original motion to dismiss the indictment, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and in light of the Supreme Court‘s opinion in Castleman, 134 S.Ct. 1405, and its vacation of our judgment in Armstrong, see 134 S.Ct. 1759. Cf. Holloway, 630 F.3d at 263 (vacating the appellants’ sentences, remanding for resentencing, and reasoning that “[u]nder the circumstances, we perceive no unfairness in allowing the government the opportunity to pursue both ... theories on remand, using Shepard approved documents“).
C. Sporting/Collection Exception Under the Sentencing Guidelines
Given that we are vacating Carter‘s conviction, we need not reach his arguments regarding the application of the Sentencing Guidelines. See, e.g., United States v. Cameron, 699 F.3d 621, 653 (1st Cir.2012) (“Because we must reverse Cameron‘s conviction with respect to six counts, we need not reach his sentencing challenge at this time.“); United States v. Rosa-Ortiz, 348 F.3d 33, 36 n. 5 (1st Cir.2003) (“Because we hold that Rosa-Ortiz‘s conduct was not a crime within the statute of conviction, however, we do not reach the sentencing issue.“).
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court‘s denial of Carter‘s supplemental motion to dismiss the indictment on constitutional grounds; we vacate his conviction and the district court‘s denial of his original motion to dismiss the indictment on statutory grounds; and we remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and in light of the Supreme Court‘s opinion in Castleman, 134 S.Ct. 1405, and its vacation of our judgment in Armstrong, see 134 S.Ct. 1759.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.