Stеphen Thomas pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) calculated an advisory sentencing guidelines range of 57 to 71 months’ imprisonment. In calculating this range, the PSR began with a base offense level of 24 pursuant to § 2K2.1(a)(2), which provides a base offense level of 24 if “the defendant committed any part of the instant offense subsequent to sustaining at least two felony convictions of ... a crime of violence.” Thomas previously had been convictеd of robbery and felony escape, both of which *1056 the PSR cited as qualifying crimes of violence. According to the police rеport of the escape offense, as summarized by the PSR, Thomas “escaped from custody while being transported from the Muskogеe City Courtroom to the Muskogee County Detention Center.” Thomas filed objections to the PSR, in which he conceded that his robbery cоnviction qualified as a crime of violence but argued that his escape conviction did not. Thomas did not object to the PSR’s summary оf the police report’s factual account of the escape, arguing instead that the escape conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence because Oklahoma’s escape statute “does not include any language relating to the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force.”
At sentencing, the Government initially agreed with Thomas that his escaрe conviction was not a crime of violence, but for a different reason. The parties agreed that Thomas was conviсted under Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 443(A), which makes it a felony for any “prisoner having been lawfully detained” to “escape[ ] from a county or city jail, either while actually confined therein, while permitted to be at large as a trusty, or while awaiting transportation to a Departmеnt of Corrections facility for execution of sentence.” Because the statute criminalizes escapes committed both by an individual who is “actually confined” and by one who is “at large as a trusty,” the Government conceded that it encompasses both еscape from custody, which qualifies as a crime of violence under our precedent, and failure to report, which does not.
See United States v. Pearson,
The district сourt, however, maintained that it could determine that Thomas indeed had escaped from custody, based on the PSR’s summary of the facts underlying his escape conviction. The Government acquiesced, and the court held that the escape conviction quаlified as a crime of violence, over Thomas’s objection. Applying § 2K2.1(a)(2), the district court found Thomas’s advisory guidelines range to bе 57 to 71 months and sentenced him to 70 months’ imprisonment. Thomas appeals, challenging the district court’s conclusion that his escape offense qualifies as a crime of violence.
When reviewing a defendant’s sentence on appeal, we “first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidеlines range.”
Gall v. United States,
The district court based its ruling that Thomas’s escape conviction was a crime of violence on the undisputed factual allegations in the PSR. Because the PSR merely summarized a police report, the Government conceded at oral argument before this Court that this ruling constituted prоcedural error under our circuit’s precedent that “where ‘[t]he PSR expressly reliefs] on police reports ... that would be inadmissiblе at sentencing’ ” under the modified categorical approach, the “PSR’s factual assertions, even if a defendant does nоt object to them, are ‘not an adequate basis for affirming [the defendant’s] sentence.’ ”
United States v. Williams,
The Government requested thаt we allow the district court on remand to consider additional evidence that may establish that the escape conviction qualifies as a crime of violence. The record, however, demonstrates that the Government was aware that it needed tо produce a charging document, judgment, or comparable judicial record to show that Thomas’s escape conviсtion qualified as a crime of violence. In fact, the Government came to sentencing with acceptable documents but сonceded that the documents it had been able to obtain were insufficient. While the record may well reflect some confusion on the part of Thomas and the district court, the Government clearly understood its burden under the modified categorical apрroach and conceded that it was unable to meet it. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the Government had a full and fair opportunity to present its evidence and that we should follow “ ‘the traditional path’ of limiting the Government to one bite at the apple.”
United States v. King,
Notes
. Neither party included these documents in the record on appeal.