United States v. Kenneth Door

656 F. App'x 376

9th Cir.

2016

Check Treatment

Docket

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Randale DOOR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-30170

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

FILED August 10, 2016

376

Argued February 4, 2016. Submitted March 17, 2016, Seattle, Washington.

Norman McIntosh Barbosa, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Steven Toshio Masada, Michael Symington Morgan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Carlton Gunn, Esquire, Attorney, Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt, LLP, Pasadena, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: KOZINSKI, O’SCANNLAIN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

In a memorandum disposition filed April 5, 2016, we affirmed Door’s conviction. Regarding Door’s sentence: (1) We held that Door was not subject to an enhancement for possessing a destructive device, U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(3)(B); (2) We held that the district court had not made the requisite findings for us to determine whether Door was subject to enhancements for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense, U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), and for obstruction of justice, U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1; and (3) We deferred resolution of the question whether Door’s six prior convictions for second-degree burglary in Washington State¹ were violent felonies under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), making him an armed career criminal, until the Supreme Court’s decision in Mathis v. United States, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016).

The Supreme Court filed its opinion in Mathis on June 23, 2016, explicitly holding that a state statute is not categorically a violent felony when its elements include alternate means of committing an offense that sweep broader than the elements of the federal generic definition. Id. at 2250-51, 2253, 2256 (2016). In supplemental briefs, Door argues and the government concedes that in light of Mathis, Door’s prior convictions for burglary in Washington are not violent felonies. We agree and so hold.

We vacate Door’s sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing. On remand, the district court may make findings of fact that either support or rule out the enhancements for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense and for obstruction of justice. We express no view on those enhancements before reviewing any findings of fact that may be made on remand.

SENTENCE VACATED and REMANDED. The time for filing petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc shall begin upon the filing date of this memorandum disposition.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kejuan Chaviz MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50491

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

FILED August 17, 2016

377

Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Julius J. Nam, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kejuan Chaviz Moore, Pro Se

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM **

Kejuan Chaviz Moore appeals from the revocation of supervised release and 11-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Moore’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Moore the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando ZATARAIN-PENA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-50163

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

FILED August 25, 2016

Notes

See Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.52.030.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.