F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
August 31, 2005
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 04-2137
v.
DAVID LOUIS KING,
Defendant - Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
(D.C. No. CR-02-2092-MV)
Amy Sirignano, Assistant United States Attorney, (and David C. Iglesias, United
States Attorney, with her on the brief), Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Plaintiff -
Appellee.
Kenneth A. Gleria, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Defendant - Appellant.
Before KELLY, BALDOCK, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
KELLY, Circuit Judge.
Defendant-Appellant David Louis King pleaded guilty to one count of
being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1)
and 924(a)(2) and was sentenced to 180 months imprisonment under the Armed
Career Criminal provisions in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (“Armed Career Criminal Act”
or “ACCA”) and U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4. On appeal, he challenges his sentence
arguing that (1) the district court erred in characterizing his prior commercial
burglary conviction as a crime of violence and thereby using it as a basis to
enhance his sentence under the ACCA and § 4B1.4 of the Sentencing Guidelines,
and (2) the district court made factual findings related to this prior conviction in
violation of the Sixth Amendment as interpreted by Booker v. United States, __
U.S. __, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). 1 Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
we affirm.
In February 2004, Mr. King pleaded guilty to one count of a two-count
indictment charging him with being a felon in possession of a firearm. I R. Docs.
37, 56. The Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) recommended that Mr.
King’s sentence be enhanced under the ACCA and U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4 based on his
prior violent felony convictions for armed robbery, commercial burglary, and
residential burglary. II R. at 8. Mr. King objected to the inclusion of his
commercial burglary conviction arguing it is not a violent felony as defined by the
ACCA and Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), because the record did
1
As Mr. King filed his appeal before Booker was decided, he argues in his
brief that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right under Blakely v.
Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). However, in this opinion we refer to Booker
because it addressed the federal Sentencing Guidelines.
-2-
not establish that the storage unit he unlawfully entered was a “structure.” I R.
Doc. 61. The district court rejected Mr. King’s argument finding that “[t]he
indictment and guilty plea demonstrate [Mr. King] was charged with and admitted
that he entered . . . a structure.” Aplt. Br. Attach. E at 26. The district court also
considered photographs of the storage unit proffered by the government
concluding, “[i]t is apparent from the photographs . . . that this self storage unit is
a structure.” Id. at 27. Mr. King was sentenced as an armed career criminal to
180 months imprisonment, the bottom of the applicable guideline range.
A. Sentence Enhancements
The ACCA mandates that a defendant who violates 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and
has “three previous convictions by any court referred to in section 922(g)(1) of
this title for a violent felony . . . shall be . . . imprisoned not less than fifteen
years.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Section 4B1.4 of the Sentencing Guidelines
defines those subject to enhancement under the ACCA as “armed career
criminal[s]” and likewise provides for an enhanced sentencing offense level and
criminal history category. 2 Burglary is one of the offenses included in the
2
Section 4B1.4 states:
(a) A defendant who is subject to an enhanced sentence under the
provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) is an armed career criminal.
(b) The offense level for an armed career criminal is the greatest
of:
-3-
ACCA’s definition of “violent felony.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). The ACCA
does not define “burglary;” however, in interpreting the Act, the Supreme Court
adopted a generic definition. Taylor, 495 U.S. at 599. Thus, “any crime,
(1) the offense level applicable from Chapters Two and
Three; or
(2) the offense level from § 4B1.1 (Career Offender) if
applicable; or
(3) (A) 34, if the defendant used or possessed the firearm
or ammunition in connection with either a crime
of violence, as defined in § 4B1.2(a), or a
controlled substance offense, as defined in §
4B1.2(b), or if the firearm possessed by the
defendant was of a type described in 26 U.S.C. §
5845(a); or
(B) 33, otherwise.
(c) The criminal history category for an armed career criminal is
the greatest of:
(1) the criminal history category from Chapter Four, Part A
(Criminal History), or § 4B1.1 (Career Offender) if
applicable; or
(2) Category VI, if the defendant used or possessed the
firearm or ammunition in connection with either a crime
of violence, as defined in § 4B1.2(a), or a controlled
substance offense, as defined in § 4B1.2(b), or if the
firearm possessed by the defendant was of a type
described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a); or
(3) Category IV.
-4-
regardless of its exact definition or label, having the basic elements of unlawful
or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or structure, with intent to
commit a crime” is a burglary and a violent felony under the ACCA. Id.
(emphasis added).
The Taylor Court also held that in determining whether a given conviction
meets the generic definition of burglary, the sentencing court is only permitted to
consider “the fact of conviction and the statutory definition of the prior offense.”
Id. at 602. This has been termed a “categorical approach.” United States v.
Hernandez-Rodriguez, 388 F.3d 779, 782 (10th Cir. 2004). However, when a
conviction results from a non-generic statute, the sentencing court can go “beyond
the mere fact of conviction” and consider the charging papers and jury
instructions to determine whether the jury was “actually required . . . to find all
the elements of generic burglary in order to convict.” Taylor, 495 U.S. at 602.
Since Taylor, the Court has applied its holding to convictions resulting from plea
agreements as well, and similarly, where a defendant pleads guilty under a non-
generic statute, the sentencing court can consider “the charging document, the
terms of a plea agreement or transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant
in which the factual basis for the plea was confirmed by the defendant.” Shepard
v. United States, __ U.S. __, 125 S. Ct. 1254, 1263 (2005).
Here, Mr. King argues that his commercial burglary conviction is not a
-5-
violent felony because the evidence properly considered under the categorical
approach does not establish the storage unit was a “structure.” We review de
novo whether a prior conviction is a violent felony for purposes of enhancement
under the ACCA and U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4. United States v. Moyer, 282 F.3d 1311,
1315 (10th Cir. 2002); United States v. Concha, 233 F.3d 1249, 1253 (10th Cir.
2000).
Mr. King was convicted of commercial burglary under a non-generic
burglary statute. See N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-16-3 (defining burglary as unlawful
entry of “any vehicle, watercraft, aircraft, dwelling or other structure”). Thus, the
district court properly considered the indictment and plea agreement related to the
offense. The indictment charged that “on or about the 10th day of July, 1995, in
Bernalillo County, New Mexico, [Mr. King] entered a structure, American Self-
Storage Unit #136 . . ., without authorization or permission, with intent to commit
a theft therein.” Aplt. Br. Attach. B at 1 (emphasis added). Mr. King
subsequently pleaded guilty to the offense “as charged in . . . [the] Indictment.”
Aplt. Br. Attach C at 1. Simply by the words used, both of these documents
establish that Mr. King was convicted for unlawfully entering a structure. See
United States v. Hill, 53 F.3d 1151, 1154-55 (10th Cir. 1995) (en banc) (finding
generic burglary elements satisfied where charging document alleged defendant
unlawfully “enter[ed] into a certain building” and defendant pleaded guilty after
-6-
“having been duly informed of the nature of the charge”) (internal quotations
omitted); United States v. Pluta, 144 F.3d 968, 976 (6th Cir. 1998) (finding
generic burglary conviction where charging document stated defendant entered a
person’s home).
Relatedly, Mr. King argues the district court erred when it considered
photographs of the storage unit in deciding whether it was a structure.
Photographs are indisputably outside the bounds of permissible evidence
considered by a sentencing court under the categorical approach. However, given
that the indictment and plea agreement sufficiently establish that Mr. King
entered a structure, this error is harmless. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a).
B. Sixth Amendment Argument
Finally, Mr. King asserts that the district court violated his Sixth
Amendment rights by finding facts related to his prior conviction. As this
argument was not raised below, we review for plain error. United States v.
Trujillo-Terrazas, 405 F.3d 814, 817 (10th Cir. 2005). The Supreme Court’s
Sixth Amendment holding in Booker reaffirms that “[a]ny fact (other than a prior
conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum
authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be
admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” 125
S.Ct. at 756 (emphasis added). As we have recently held, this prior conviction
-7-
exception “subsumes inquiries into whether a given conviction constitutes a
‘violent felony.’” United States v. Serrano, 406 F.3d 1208, 1220 (10th Cir. 2005)
(citation omitted). Indeed, “[b]ecause determining whether a given felony
constitutes a ‘violent felony’ is a question of law and not fact, the Sixth
Amendment does not require that determination to be made by a jury.” Id.
(citation omitted).
Mr. King argues the exception for prior convictions does not apply in this
case because in considering the photographs of the storage unit the district court
went beyond simply finding the fact of the prior conviction, instead finding facts
regarding the nature of the conviction. See Aplt. Br. at 23-24. He again asserts
that “[b]ut for the district court’s reliance on the photographic exhibits offered by
the government, no admissible basis exists to establish a prior conviction for a
generic burglary crime within the meaning of [the ACCA].” Id. at 24-25.
However, this argument is foreclosed by our conclusion that the indictment and
plea agreement establish the generic elements of burglary, and we need not
address it further.
AFFIRMED.
-8-