UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan V. ANGIANO, Defendant-Appellant

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit2010-04-19No. No. 09-3592

602 F.3d 828

Summary · law.co

Holding. Because burglary of a dwelling is specifically enumerated as a crime of violence under the sentencing guideline for illegal reentry convictions, the sixteen-level enhancement was properly applied, and the district court's decision was affirmed.

Juan Angiano pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation, following a prior Wisconsin conviction for burglary of a dwelling. Under the sentencing guidelines applicable to illegal reentry offenses, a prior conviction for a crime of violence triggers a mandatory sixteen-level sentencing enhancement. The central question on appeal was whether burglary of a dwelling qualifies as a crime of violence under the relevant guideline.

The sentencing guidelines specifically enumerate burglary of a dwelling as a crime of violence, and the commentary clarifies that enumerated offenses automatically receive that classification regardless of whether the specific facts of the offense involved physical force. Angiano argued the court should have analyzed his particular conviction under the guideline's residual clause—which requires an element of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force—relying on two Supreme Court precedents. The appellate court rejected this argument, finding those cases inapplicable because they involved offenses that were not enumerated and therefore required residual clause analysis.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether burglary of a dwelling constitutes a crime of violence under sentencing guidelines
Whether enumerated offenses require residual clause analysis or are automatically classified as crimes of violence
Applicability of Supreme Court precedent regarding residual clause interpretation to enumerated offenses

Procedural posture

Angiano appealed his seventy-seven-month sentence imposed for illegal reentry, challenging the sixteen-level enhancement based on his prior burglary conviction.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

BAUER, Circuit Judge.

At issue in this appeal is whether the district court correctly concluded that burglary of a dwelling is a crime of violence, warranting a sentencing enhancement. Reviewing this question of law de novo, we affirm.

DISCUSSION

Juan Angiano pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry after being convicted of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and 1326(b)(2). Angiano admitted that he was previously convicted of burglary of a dwelling, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 943.10(lm)(a).

The statute under which Angiano was sentenced states: “If the previously was deported, or unlawfully remained in the United States, after ... a conviction for a felony that is ... a crime of violence ... increase by 16 levels.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2009). A “crime of violence” includes any of the following offenses under federal, state, or local law:

[MJurder, manslaughter, kidnapping, aggravated assault, forcible sex offenses ... statutory rape, sexual abuse of a minor, robbery, arson, extortion, extortionate extension of credit, burglary of a dwelling, or any other 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. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2 n. l(B)(iii) (2009) (emphasis added).

The Guidelines Manual makes clear that enumerated offenses, such as burglary of a dwelling “are always classified as ‘crimes of violence,’ regardless of whether the pri- or offense expressly has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, Supplement to Appendix C, Amendment 722 (effective date Nov. 1, 2008). The district judge applied the sixteen-level enhancement and sentenced Angiano to imprisonment for seventy-seven months.

On appeal, Angiano would like us to skip over the enumerated offenses in the definition above and analyze the particulars of his offense to see if it “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” Angiano cites Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137, 128 S.Ct. 1581, 170 L.Ed.2d 490 (2008), and Chambers v. United States, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 687, 172 L.Ed.2d 484 (2009), arguing that these Supreme Court cases looked at the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act’s (“ACCA”) definition of “violent felony” to determine whether an enhancement was warranted. However, these cases are in-apposite; both Begay and Chambers only classified the prior convictions under the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2006) because the prior offenses were not specifically enumerated as “violent felon[ies]” under that clause. Here, Angiano’s prior offense is specifically enumerated as a crime of violence under § 2L1.2 n. l(B)(iii); there is no need to look at the residual clause.

CONCLUSION

Because burglary of a dwelling is specifically enumerated as a crime of violence under § 2L1.2 n. l(B)(iii), the sixteen-level enhancement was warranted.

Affirmed.