F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
August 1, 2007
PU BL ISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT O F APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 06-2184
JOSE RU IZ-RODR IGU EZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New M exico
(D.C. No. CR-05-2162-W J)
Raymond P. M oore, Federal Public Defender, and Vicki M andell-King, Assistant
Federal Public D efender, Denver, Colorado, for the Defendant-Appellant.
Larry Gómez, Acting United States Attorney, and W illiam J. Pflugrath, Assistant
United States Attorney, Albuquerque, New M exico, for the Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before BRISCO E, EBEL, and M CCO NNELL, Circuit Judges.
EBEL, Circuit Judge.
In 2005, Defendant-Appellant Jose Ruiz-Rodriguez was charged with and
pled guilty to unlawful reentry after deportation subsequent to a conviction for
comm ission of an aggravated felony, see 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b), and was
sentenced to 41 months of imprisonment. He now appeals his sentence,
specifically the portion based on his prior conviction for a crime of violence,
arguing that the elements of the prior crime at issue do not meet the relevant
Sentencing Guidelines’ definition of a crime of violence. 1 W e agree. Therefore,
we REVERSE and REM AND for resentencing.
After considering the sentencing goals articulated at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),
the district court imposed a 41-month sentence, which fell within the advisory
Guidelines’ range. That range was calculated in part by applying the Sentencing
Guidelines’ sixteen-level enhancement for a defendant previously deported after a
conviction for a felony that is a crime of violence. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii).
The Guidelines define a crime of violence as one of twelve enumerated offenses
or “any offense under federal, state, or local law that has as an element the use,
attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.”
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.1(B)(iii). 2 The prior conviction at issue in this case is for
1
After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.
34.1(G ). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
2
“Commentary in the Guidelines M anual that interprets or explains a
(continued...)
-2-
first-degree false imprisonment, as defined by Nebraska law. False imprisonment
is not one of the enumerated offenses that automatically qualifies as a crime of
violence, so the enhancement applies only if Nebraska law defines false
imprisonment as having as “an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use
of physical force against the person of another.” Id.
In sentencing M r. Ruiz-Rodriguez, the district court acknowledged that it
must apply the categorical approach to defining a crime of violence. See Taylor
v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 602 (1990). The court also referred to the rule
from Shepard v. United States that a court can refer to the charging documents,
guilty plea and plea colloquy to see if the prior conviction was, categorically, for
a crime of violence. See 544 U.S. 13, 26 (2005). The district court then reviewed
the amended information, which mirrored the language of the statute defining
false imprisonment, and which charged that the defendant did “knowingly restrain
or abduct [the victim] under terrorizing circumstances or circumstances which
exposed her to the risk of serious bodily injury.” The court agreed with the
Government that the “verbs [in the statute] implicate a use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against another,” and concluded that M r. Ruiz-
2
(...continued)
guideline is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or
is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that guideline.” United
States v. Torres-Ruiz, 387 F.3d 1179, 1181 (10th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted).
-3-
Rodriguez had previously been convicted of a crime of violence that should
trigger a 16-level enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines.
W e have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18
U.S.C. § 3742. W e review de novo a district court’s determination that a prior
offense is a crime that can trigger a sentence enhancement under U .S.S.G. §
2L1.2(b). United States v. Venegas-O rnelas, 348 F.3d 1273, 1274 (10th Cir.
2003)
“W hen determining whether a prior conviction is a crime of violence, the
Supreme Court has instructed sentencing courts to take ‘a formal categorical
approach, looking only to the statutory definitions of the prior offenses, and not
to the particular facts underlying those convictions.’” United States v.
Perez-Vargas, 414 F.3d 1282, 1284 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Taylor, 495 U.S. at
600). Nonetheless, “[i]f the statute is ambiguous, or broad enough to encompass
both violent and nonviolent crimes, a court can look beyond the statute ‘to certain
records of the prior proceeding, such as the charging documents, the judgment,
any plea thereto, and findings by the court.’” United States v. Dwyer, 245 F.3d
1168, 1171 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Zamora, 222 F.3d 756, 764
(10th Cir. 2000)).
Although we previously have held that a conviction for false imprisonment
under some state definitions can qualify as a crime of violence, we have done so
only for a different type of sentence enhancement that does not resolve the issue
-4-
in this case. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 has a more narrow definition of “crime of
violence” than the enhancement for career offenders, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) and
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, which defines a crime of violence in terms of a crime that has
an element of force or “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of
physical injury to another.” U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 does not provide for the latter
alternative definition. 3 Therefore, although we have held that false imprisonment
can qualify as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, that determination has
hinged on our determination that the crime necessarily entails “a substantial risk
of physical force being used” because “it involves non-consensual acts on another
person.” Zamora, 222 F.3d at 764. In contrast, our current inquiry is limited to
whether false imprisonment in Nebraska “has as an element the use, attempted
3
The government conceded in its April 2, 2007, brief that the district court
indeed erred in concluding that M r. Ruiz-Rodriguez’s prior conviction was a
crime of violence under Taylor’s categorical approach. The government stood by
its concession in its June 25, 2007, supplemental brief, arguing that we should
reverse and remand for resentencing.
Then, on July 12, 2007, the government submitted a letter pursuant to Fed.
R. App. P. 28(j) that did not expressly withdraw its earlier concession but instead
argued that the district court actually was correct to conclude that M r. Ruiz-
Rodriguez’s prior conviction was for a crime of violence. In support of this new
argument, the government cited James v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct.
1586 (April 18, 2007). James addresses how to assess whether a prior conviction
was for conduct that presented “serious potential risk of physical injury to
another” under 18 U .S.C . § 924(e). See, e.g., 127 S. Ct. at 1597-98. As
explained above, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 does not define a crime of violence in the
same way, and there is no indication that the Supreme Court intended James to
apply to sentence enhancements under § 2L1.2. The government’s 28(j) letter,
therefore, in no way undermines its previous concession that M r. Ruiz-Rodiguez’s
prior conviction was not a crime of violence under § 2L1.2.
-5-
use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” U.S.S.G .
§ 2L1.2 cmt. n.1(B)(iii).
The crime of first-degree false imprisonment in Nebraska is defined as
follow s:
A person commits false imprisonment in the first degree if he or she
knowingly restrains or abducts another person (a) under terrorizing
circumstances or under circumstances w hich expose the person to the
risk of serious bodily injury; or (b) with intent to hold him or her in a
condition of involuntary servitude.
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-314(1). “Restrain” is further defined: “to restrict a person’s
movement in such a manner as to interfere substantially with his liberty: (a) By
means of force, threat, or deception; or (b) If the person is under the age of
eighteen or incompetent, without the consent of the relative, person, or institution
having lawful custody of him.” N eb. Rev. Stat. § 28-312(1) (emphasis added).
M r. Ruiz-Rodriguez argues that the phrase “restrains” does not necessarily
require the use of force or threats or attempted use of force, and instead allows
for restraint by “deception.” In response to our request for supplemental briefing,
he also contends that the phrase “under terrorizing circumstances” merely points
to circumstances that give rise to fear, and that it does not necessarily encompass
the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of
another. M r. Ruiz-Rodriguez argues that the district court thus erred in deciding
that a false imprisonment conviction in Nebraska categorically equates to a crime
of violence under U .S.S.G. § 2L1.2.
-6-
W e conclude that, under the categorical approach of Taylor and Shepard, he
is correct. “Taylor is clear that any enquiry beyond statute and charging
document must be narrowly restricted to implement the object of the [sentencing
enhancement] statute and avoid evidentiary disputes.” Shepard, 544 U.S. at 23
n.4. Thus w e look specifically at the Nebraska definition of false imprisonment,
which is mirrored in the documents before the district court surrounding M r.
Ruiz-Rodriguez’s charge, plea and conviction. The statutory definition in
question does not require that a defendant use force, because a defendant can be
convicted under the statute by using deception. Cf. Perez-Vargas, 414 F.3d at
1286 (noting a Second Circuit case analyzing a Connecticut third degree assault
statute that penalized a defendant who caused injury by “guile, deception, or even
deliberate omission,” and concluding it was not necessarily a crime of violence
(citing Chrzanoski v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 188, 195 (2d Cir. 2003)).
The qualifying phrase “under terrorizing circumstances or under
circumstances w hich expose the person to the risk of serious bodily injury” also
does not necessarily encompass an element of force. As we observed in Perez-
Vargas, it is possible for a defendant to engage in behavior that exposes another
person to risk of injury but without the use of force. 414 F.3d at 1286-87 (noting
a Fifth Circuit holding that neglecting a child can cause bodily injury sufficient to
trigger liability under state criminal code, but the underlying state statute might
not qualify for a crime of violence (citing United States v. Gracia-Cantu, 302 F.3d
-7-
308, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2002))). Although we do not have a case example before
us, we can imagine that a person can cause fear in someone else sufficient to
create “terrorizing circumstances” without the use, attempted use or threatened
use of physical force against the victim.
W hen we decide that a state law definition of a crime does not meet the
strict parameters of a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), we
can remand to the district court for review of the charging documents, plea
agreement, transcript of a plea colloquy or documentation of the judge’s factual
findings in the prior offense’s proceeding to determine whether conviction for the
prior offense necessarily meant the defendant engaged in the required element of
force. United States v. Hernandez-Garduno, 460 F.3d 1287, 1294 (10th Cir.
2006). The district court here reviewed only the amended information, judgment
and sentence, and therefore the documents before the court were incomplete. O n
remand, the government should have the opportunity to present whatever
additional documents are permissible under Shepard and Hernandez-Garduno for
consideration of whether the prior conviction was for a crime of violence.
Therefore, we hold that the district court erred in concluding that M r. Ruiz-
Rodriguez’s prior conviction for false imprisonment was a crime of violence
under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) and in applying a sixteen-level enhancement
pursuant to that determination. W e REVERSE and REM AND for resentencing.
-8-
See United States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050, 1055 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding that a
non-harmless error applying the Guidelines warrants remand).
-9-