F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
JUL 8 2003
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 02-1367
JOSE PATRICK VIGIL,
Defendant - Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
(D. Ct. No. 01-CR-168-D)
Lynn Hartfield, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Michael G. Katz, Federal
Public Defender, and Charles Szekely, Assistant Federal Public Defender, on the
briefs), Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Districts of Colorado and
Wyoming, Denver, Colorado, appearing for Appellant.
Joshua Stein, Assistant United States Attorney (John Suthers, United States
Attorney, with him on the brief), Office of the United States Attorney, Denver,
Colorado, appearing for Appellee.
Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge, and
O’BRIEN, Circuit Judge.
TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge.
Defendant-Appellant, Jose Patrick Vigil, appeals his sentence for
possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). Specifically, he appeals the district court’s determination that his
prior state conviction for aggravated incest constituted a prior conviction for a
“crime of violence” within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, resulting in a base
offense level of 20 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) and a sentence of 27 months
imprisonment. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and AFFIRM.
I. B ACKGROUND
The parties do not dispute the relevant facts. Before his conviction for the
offense at issue in this case, Vigil sustained two felony convictions, including a
conviction for aggravated incest in violation of section 18-6-302 of the Colorado
Revised Statutes. Specifically, in 1989, Vigil was convicted of sexually
penetrating his natural child over a period of slightly less than two years. 1
The acts supporting conviction in the instant case occurred between
approximately April 1996 and June 2000, when Vigil repeatedly pawned and
redeemed a rifle at a pawn shop in Security, Colorado. He was subsequently
charged with, and pleaded guilty to, one count of possession of a firearm by a
previously convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district
1
Vigil’s other felony conviction, in 1996, was for attempted criminal
mischief. That conviction does not bear upon our consideration of the instant
case.
-2-
court entered judgment against him on August 26, 2002.
At sentencing, the parties disputed the appropriate base offense level under
the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The government argued that aggravated
incest, as defined by Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-6-302, constitutes a “crime of
violence” within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, and that Vigil’s base offense
level should accordingly be increased from 14 to 20 under U.S.S.G. §
2K2.1(a)(4)(A) . Vigil argued that the Colorado statute did not define a crime of
violence for purposes of § 4B1.2, and that his base offense level should therefore
be 14. 2 The district court requested briefing on this issue, and both parties filed
written submissions.
In determining whether Vigil’s 1989 conviction for aggravated incest
constituted a crime of violence under § 4B1.2 for purposes of calculating his base
offense level under § 2K2.1, the district court declined to consider the
Presentencing Report from the 1989 Colorado case. To determine the age of
Vigil’s daughter at the time her father sexually penetrated her, the district court
considered only the charging document and judgment of conviction from the 1989
aggravated incest case. Based upon these documents, the district court found that
2
The parties agree that, if this court determines that aggravated incest does
not constitute a crime of violence under § 4B1.2, then the “sporting exception” set
forth in U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2) would apply. Because we hold that aggravated
incest as defined in the relevant Colorado statute is a crime of violence for
purposes of § 4B1.2, we need not consider the applicability of § 2K2.1(b)(2).
-3-
Vigil’s daughter would have been approximately 18 years old at the time of the
offense. 3
To determine whether aggravated incest under section 18-6-302 of the
Colorado Revised Statutes constituted a crime of violence for purposes of §
4B1.2, the district court relied on the methodology set forth in United States v.
Dwyer, 245 F.3d 1168, 1171 (10th Cir. 2001). Under Dwyer, a court generally
considers only the statutory elements of the crime; if, however, the statute’s
language is ambiguous or broad enough to encompass both violent and nonviolent
crimes, a court may 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. Id.
Applying Dwyer, the district court determined that aggravated incest as
defined by the Colorado statute is, categorically, a crime of violence for purposes
of § 4B1.2. Specifically, the district court concluded that “when a father inflicts
sexual penetration or sexual intrusion on a child that’s . . .18 years old . . . that
implies force and . . . that implied force is sufficient to make this aggravated
incest a crime of violence within the meaning of section 4B1.2.” Based on this
conclusion, the district court increased Vigil’s base offense level under U.S.S.G.
3
We are uncertain how the district court reached this conclusion and do not
adopt this finding for purposes of our analysis.
-4-
§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) and held that the “sporting exception” set forth in § 2K2.1(b)(2)
did not apply to reduce his base offense level. 4 The district court sentenced Vigil
to 27 months imprisonment, followed by two years of supervised release. This
appeal followed.
II. D ISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Whether a statute defines a “crime of violence” for purposes of U.S.S.G. §
4B1.2 is a question of statutory construction, which we review de novo. United
States v. Riggans, 254 F.3d 1200, 1203 (10th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S.
932 (2001); United States v. Spring, 80 F.3d 1450, 1463 (10th Cir. 1996).
B. Overview of Applicable Law
1. Section 4B1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines
Pursuant to U.S.S.G § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A), Vigil’s base offense level for
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) would be 20 if he “committed any part of the
4
Section 2K2.1 provides in relevant part:
If the defendant, other than a defendant subject to subsection . . .
[(a)(4)’s “crime of violence” enhancement]. . . possessed all
ammunition and firearms solely for lawful sporting purposes or
collection, and did not unlawfully discharge or otherwise unlawfully
use such firearms or ammunition, decrease the offense level
determined above to level 6.
U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2).
-5-
instant offense subsequent to sustaining one felony conviction of . . . a crime of
violence.” Under the Guidelines, “[t]he term ‘crime of violence’ means any
offense under federal or state 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.
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). The application notes following § 4B1.2 explain that “crime
of violence” includes, inter alia, “murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, aggravated
assault, forcible sex offenses, robbery, arson, extortion, extortionate extension of
credit, and burglary of a dwelling.” Id., Application note 1 (emphasis added).
In determining whether a particular felony offense constitutes a crime of
violence within the meaning of § 4B1.2, we employ a “categorical” approach that
omits consideration of the particular facts of the case. See United States v.
Pierce, 278 F.3d 282, 286 (4th Cir. 2002) (determination of whether state
conviction for taking indecent liberties with a child constitutes a crime of
violence under § 4B1.2 requires a “categorical approach, which takes into account
only the definition of the offense and the fact of conviction”); United States v.
Reyes-Castro, 13 F.3d 377, 379 (10th Cir.1993) (same categorical approach
applies to “crime of violence” determinations under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b)); see also
-6-
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 600 (1990) (determination of whether
burglary constitutes a predicate crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)
“mandates a formal categorical approach, looking only to the statutory definitions
of the prior offenses, and not to the particular facts underlying those
convictions”). “When the definition of the predicate offense is ambiguous and
does not reveal whether it is a crime of violence, we may discover the nature of
the offense for which the defendant was actually convicted by looking at the
charging document and the jury instructions . . . [but this] inquiry must never
‘involve [ ] a factual inquiry into the facts previously presented and tried.’”
Pierce, 278 F.3d at 286 (citation omitted). Thus, our inquiry begins—and in this
case ends—with an examination of the Colorado statute under which Vigil was
convicted in 1989.
2. The Colorado Aggravated Incest Statute
The portion of the statute of conviction under which Vigil entered his
guilty plea provides:
A person commits aggravated incest when he or she knowingly:
(a) Marries his or her natural child or inflicts sexual penetration or
sexual intrusion on or subjects to sexual contact, as defined in
section 18-3-401, his or her natural child, stepchild, or child by
adoption . . . . For the purpose of this paragraph (a) only,
“child” means a person under twenty-one years of age.
-7-
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-6-302(1)(a). 5
The information to which Vigil pled guilty
charged that “[b]etween July 2, 1983 and March 31, 1985, Jose Patrick Vigil did
unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously inflict sexual penetration upon . . . his
natural child; In violation of Colorado Revised Statutes 18-6-302.” Colorado
defines “sexual penetration” as follows: “‘Sexual penetration’ means sexual
intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, analingus, or anal intercourse. Emission need
not be proved as an element of any sexual penetration. Any penetration, however
slight, is sufficient to complete the crime.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-401(6).
C. Analysis
In this case, the question before us is whether, without reference to the
underlying facts of the case, the offense set forth in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-6-302
“has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force
against the person of another,” thereby satisfying the first prong of U.S.S.G. §
4B1.2, or “ otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of
5
As Vigil points out, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-6-302 proscribes a range of
conduct, not merely sexual penetration of the defendant’s natural child.
Subsection (1)(b) provides that a person commits aggravated incest when he or
she:
Marries, inflicts sexual penetration or sexual intrusion on, or subjects
to sexual contact, as defined in section 18-3-401, a descendant, a
brother or sister of the whole or half blood, or an uncle, aunt,
nephew, or niece of the whole blood who is under ten years of age.
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-6-302(1)(b).
-8-
physical injury to another,” thereby satisfying section 4B1.2’s second prong. We
consider each question in turn.
The district court held that Colorado’s aggravated incest statute defines a
crime of violence based on the first prong of section 4B1.2, concluding that
section 18-6-302 contains as an element the threatened use of physical force. As
Vigil points out, the district court did so in spite of the fact that the statute
prohibits a range of conduct and does not expressly require the threatened use of
physical force. The district court determined, however, that the requisite threat of
force is implied whenever a parent inflicts sexual penetration on his or her child.
While we base our holding primarily on the “serious threat of physical injury”
analysis under the second prong of section 4B1.2, we agree with the district
court’s conclusion.
The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Pierce is in accord. Inferring
“constructive force” from the power disparity between an adult abuser and his
child-victim, the Pierce court held that the crime of taking indecent liberties with
a child, under a North Carolina statute that does not require physical touching,
constitutes a “forcible sex offense” and is therefore categorically a crime of
violence for purposes of § 4B1.2’s first prong. 6
278 F.3d at 289-91 (citing
The Pierce court first found that the North Carolina statute defined a
6
crime of violence under § 4B1.2’s second prong. 278 F.3d at 287-89.
-9-
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 & Application Note 1). The court explained that explicit threats
are not necessary to render such felonies “forcible” sex offenses:
“The youth and vulnerability of children, coupled with the power
inherent in a parent’s position of authority, creates a unique situation
of dominance and control in which explicit threats and displays of
force are not necessary to effect the abuser’s purpose.”
Id. at 290 (quoting State v. Etheridge , 352 S.E.2d 673, 681 (N.C. 1987)).
The district court’s conclusion also finds support in our discussion of
aggravated incest in United States v. Passi , 62 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 1995). In
Passi , we rejected the defendant’s argument that incest was not an act of
violence. We agreed with the district court’s assessment that “psychological
brutalization is inherent in an offense like this and incest and rape are in the
same category as both being crimes of violence inherently whether or not raw
force is used .” Id. at 1282 (emphasis added).
Based on the above, we conclude that the power asymmetry implicit in
aggravated incest, as defined by section 18-6-302, permits the inference of a
threat of force; thus, aggravated incest constitutes a “crime of violence” under
section 4B1.2(a)(1).
Moreover, we are convinced that aggravated incest “ involves conduct that
presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” U.S.S.G. §
4B1.2(a)(2). In support of his argument to the contrary, Vigil contends that a
child’s inability to legally consent to sexual penetration by her father does not
-10-
preclude the possibility of her factual “consent”; according to Vigil, this
possibility of factual consent eliminates any serious risk of physical harm
resulting from a struggle necessary to subdue the victim. Further, he argues that
our previous cases addressing this issue are inapposite because they considered
sexual abuse of children significantly younger than his daughter was at the time
of the offense to which he pled guilty. Thus, he argues, because sexual
penetration of a willing teenage daughter does not necessarily involve a serious
risk of physical injury—either from a struggle to subdue an unwilling victim or
from the physical dangers of sex with a very young victim—it would be
inappropriate to hold that the statute of conviction categorically defines a crime
of violence. We find neither of these arguments persuasive.
1. Significance of the Child’s Legal Inability to Consent to Aggravated
Incest: United States v. Reyes-Castro
Our previous cases do not support Vigil’s argument that the possibility of
the victim’s factual consent requires us to hold that aggravated incest is not
categorically a crime of violence. In Reyes-Castro, we held that attempted sexual
abuse of a minor under a Utah statute was a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. §
16(b), 7 despite the fact that the offense did not contain an element of physical
7
For a discussion of the applicability of cases construing 18 U.S.C. § 16(b)
to the categorization of felonies under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, see Part II.C.3, infra.
-11-
force—indeed, the statute at issue did not even require physical touching of the
victim. 13 F.3d at 379. In so holding we adopted the Eighth Circuit’s reasoning
in United States v. Rodriguez, 979 F.2d 138, 141 (8th Cir. 1992). Considering
“the role of force in crimes where lack of victim consent is an element,” the
Rodriguez court analogized the sexual abuse of a minor, who is incapable of legal
consent, to the non-consensual touching by a rapist of an adult victim, who is
capable of legal consent but does not grant it. Reyes-Castro, 13 F.3d at 379-80.
We agreed, and held:
A common sense view of the sexual abuse statute, in combination
with the legal determination that children are incapable of consent,
suggests that when an older person attempts to sexually touch a child
under the age of fourteen, there is always a substantial risk that
physical force will be used to ensure the child’s compliance. Sexual
abuse of a child is therefore a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. §
16(b).
Id. at 379; accord McCann v. Rosquist, 185 F.3d 1113, 1119 (10th Cir. 1999),
vacated on other grounds, 529 U.S. 1126 (2000) (recognizing that “children’s
lesser physical stature and general vulnerability to violence and sexual
exploitation by adults may increase the risk that physical force be exerted to
ensure compliance in situations of child sexual abuse”).
2. Significance of the Age of the Victim: McCann v. Rosquist
In McCann, we reaffirmed our view that the impossibility of legal consent
under child sex-abuse statutes is directly analogous to the kind of non-consensual
-12-
sexual touching that constitutes rape. 185 F.3d at 1119-20 & n.8. Accordingly,
in McCann we applied the logic of Reyes-Castro to the non-consensual touching
of adults, holding that a Utah criminal offense of forcible sexual abuse
constituted a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) for purposes of the civil
liability provision of the Violence Against Women Act, 42 U.S.C. § 13981.
Furthermore, and contrary to Vigil’s argument that the relationship between
the impossibility of legal consent and the risk of physical injury in our prior cases
only applies when the victims are young children, we expressly noted in McCann
that the age of the victim is immaterial:
In Reyes-Castro, we focused on the relationship between lack of
consent and the substantial risk of the application of physical force.
We conclude today that such relationship is significant regardless of
the age of the victim.
Id. at 1119-20 (emphasis added); see also United States v. Phelps, 17 F.3d 1334,
1342 (10th Cir.1994) (concluding that kidnapping is a violent felony under 18
U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B) and emphasizing relationship between lack of consent and
risk of physical injury).
In sum, we have previously employed the inability of a victim to legally
consent to sexual encounters as a proxy for the coercive nature of sex crimes; and
we have further held that the victim’s age does not change the significance of the
absence of consent—legal or factual. Thus, the possibility of a child-victims’s
sincere consent to aggravated incest is irrelevant.
-13-
3. Applicability of Reyes-Castro and McCann to § 4B1.2
Both Reyes-Castro and McCann considered whether particular felonies
constituted crimes of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) rather than U.S.S.G. §
4B1.2. While the definition of “crime of violence” under § 4B1.2 is not identical
to that found in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), we have previously applied the Reyes-Castro
analysis to § 4B1.2. In United States v. Coronado-Cervantes, we applied our
reasoning under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) in Reyes-Castro to hold that sexual contact
with a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2244(a)(1) & 2245(3),
constitutes a crime of violence within the meaning of U.S.S.G § 4B1.2. 154 F.3d
1242, 1243-44 (10th Cir. 1998). In so holding, we acknowledged the slight
difference in the statutory definitions of “crimes of violence”:
We realize that the definitions of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. §
16 and U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 differ. The relevant part of 18 U.S.C. § 16
requires a showing that the offense “involves a substantial risk that
physical force against the person or property of another may be
used,” while U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 requires a showing that the offense
“otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of
physical injury to another.” Nonetheless, we consider Reyes-Castro
persuasive.
Id. at 1244 (citing United States v. Kirk, 111 F.3d 390, 394 (5th Cir.1997) and
United States v. Bauer, 990 F.2d 373, 374-75 (8th Cir. 1993) (prior holding that
lascivious acts with a child was a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 16
compelled holding that sexual intercourse with victim under sixteen was a “crime
of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2)). We remain convinced that the analysis
-14-
under § 16(b) set forth in the cases cited supra applies with equal force to the
question before us under § 4B1.2.
4. The Seventh Circuit’s Caselaw
Vigil’s reliance on Seventh Circuit precedent for the proposition that
aggravated incest should not be categorically a crime of violence is misplaced.
Vigil is correct that, in United States v. Shannon , the Seventh Circuit declined to
adopt a per se inference that a serious risk of injury arises whenever a party
violates a statutory-rape statute. 110 F.3d 382, 385-86 (7th Cir. 1997) (“An
inference of violence from mere unconsented-to physical contact . . . would not
wash in this circuit.”); see also Xiong v. INS, 173 F.3d 601, 607 (7th Cir. 1999)
(factually consented-to sex between 15 year-old and 17 year-old not a crime of
violence); United States v. Thomas, 159 F.3d 296, 299-300 (7th Cir. 1998)
(statute criminalizing sexual intercourse between child under 17 and anyone at
least five years older did not mandate the inference of a serious risk of physical
injury).
We need not address the reasoning of these cases, however, as they do not
consider the aggravating factor of incest. 8 In Shannon, the panel expressly
distinguished cases involving incest: “Some cases from other circuits might be
Indeed, far from addressing incest, all of the cases cited involved
8
defendants unrelated to, and close in age to, their statutory victims.
-15-
read as . . . deeming any felonious sex act with a minor a per se crime of violence.
Most of them can be distinguished, however, as involving . . . incest, or other
aggravating factors.” 110 F.3d at 386. Further, in U.S. v. Martinez-Carillo, when
the Seventh Circuit did confront the effect of incest on the categorization of sex
offenses against children, it held that “incest presents an aggravating factor that
evokes a serious potential risk of physical injury.” 250 F.3d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir.
2001). Thus, even under the Seventh Circuit precedent upon which Vigil relies, a
father’s digital penetration of his minor daughter was held a crime of violence,
despite the absence of risk factors such as pregnancy and venereal disease:
[T]he statute of conviction in this case, which punishes more than
sexual intercourse with a minor, is concerned with the nature of the
relationship between the defendant and the child-victim. The
familial bond of trust is violated by actions punished under this
statute. A child-victim is likely to comply with the sexual request by
or action of her father out of fear stemming from the belief that
physical consequences will flow from noncompliance or simply
because she trusts him not to do her wrong. We find that incest
presents an aggravating factor that evokes a serious potential risk of
physical injury. This was alluded to rather markedly in Shannon.
Id.
5. “Risk”
Throughout his brief, Vigil relies heavily on the possibility that a parent
could engage in conduct prohibited by the statute of conviction without a serious
risk of physical injury to the child-victim. Because the statute governs scenarios
in which an older child (defined as a “person under twenty-one years of age”)
-16-
sincerely consents to aggravated incest, so the argument goes, the victim’s
consent eliminates the possibility of a struggle prior to and during penetration,
while his or her physical maturity eliminates the risk of physical injury from the
act itself. 9
Vigil’s argument ignores the text of the statute and misses the point of the
categorical approach. The statute speaks in terms of probability—a “risk”—not
certainty. “[R]isk is by definition probable not certain; hence potential rather
than actual.” Shannon , 110 F.3d at 385. Thus, physical injury need not be a
certainty for a crime to pose a serious risk of physical injury. Accordingly, the
possibility that a crime may be completed without injury is irrelevant to the
determination of whether it constitutes a crime of violence within the meaning of
§ 4B1.2.
For example, the statute expressly includes arson and burglary of a
dwelling as crimes of violence; yet a sizable percentage of burglaries and arsons
occur in “safely” unoccupied homes. Indeed, one assumes that the point of
burglary is getting to steal things without confrontation and violence; and arson is
a crime against property. See Pierce , 278 F.3d at 288 (noting that although
“neither arson nor burglary of a dwelling categorically has an element any
In support of his argument that such relationships exist, Vigil cites
9
Kathryn Harrison’s autobiographical novel, The Kiss, which describes in positive
terms the author’s consensual incestuous relationship with her father.
-17-
touching or physical harm to a person” both are categorically crimes of violence,
and noting that the Fourth Circuit has categorized attempted breaking and
entering of a dwelling, escape, and attempted escape as crimes of violence within
the meaning of § 4B1.2); United States v. Velazquez-Overa , 100 F.3d 418, 422
(5th Cir. 1996) (supporting categorization of sexual abuse of a child as crime of
violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) with analogy to burglary). This is, in fact, the
essence and the point of the categorical approach:
The reason [we do not consider the underlying facts] is clear: either
a crime is violent “by its nature” or it is not. It cannot be a crime of
violence “by its nature” in some cases, but not others, depending on
the circumstances. There is accordingly no need to consider the
conduct underlying the defendant’s conviction. A sentencing court
need only consider the fact that he was convicted and the inherent
nature of the offense.
Velazquez-Overa , 100 F .3d at 420-21.
Moreover, as we pointed out above, we have already held that (1) the
possibility of factual consent does not obviate the risk of physical injury, Reyes-
Pena , 216 F.3d at 1211, and (2) when considering the relationship between lack
of consent and the risk of physical injury, the age of the victim is immaterial.
McCann , 185 F.3d at 1120. Thus, even assuming that an “older” child could
meaningfully “consent” to aggravated incest, and that such an encounter could
transpire without greater “risk” of physical injury to the victim than that inherent
in “ordinary” sexual intercourse, such a scenario is as irrelevant to our analysis as
-18-
similarly “safe” arson and burglary scenarios.
III. C ONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that aggravated incest, as defined by
section 18-6-302 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, constitutes a crime of violence
within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. We therefore AFFIRM the sentence
imposed by the district court.
-19-
02-1367, United States v. Vigil
O’Brien, Circuit Judge, concurring.
Judge O’Brien concurs in the result.