United States v. TigerUnited States v. Tiger
This case is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court. Appellant, Ronald Dean Tiger, pled guilty to bank robbery in violation of
In
Begay,
the Court held that the New Mexico felony offense of DUI was not a “violent felony” within the meaning of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA),
(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another; or
(ii) is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.
Tiger was not sentenced under the ACCA. However, the definition of “crime of violence” contained in USSG § 4B1.2(a) is virtually identical to that contained in the ACCA.
3
Because the Court’s reasoning in
Begay
applies equally to the sentencing guidelines, we hereby overrule our holding in
Moore
that “[djriving while intoxicated clearly presents a ‘serious potential risk of physical injury to another’ and therefore is a crime of violence under § 4B1.2(a).”
4
We REMAND to the district court with instructions to vacate Tiger’s sentence and resentence.
Notes
. A defendant is a career offender under USSG § 4B1.1 if "(1) [he] was at least eighteen years old at the time [he] committed the instant offense of conviction; (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and (3) the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.” USSG § 4Bl.l(a).
. Tiger was convicted of DUI in violation of
. USSG § 4B1.2(a) defines a “crime of violence” as "any offense under federal or stale law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that — ”
(1) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, or
(2) is burglary of a dwelling, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.
. This Court can overrule a prior panel decision absent en banc reconsideration where there is a superseding contrary decision by the United States Supreme Court.
See In re Smith,