U.S. v. Cunningham

Decision Date17 August 1990
Docket NumberNo. 88-3046,88-3046
Citation911 F.2d 361
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randall Gene CUNNINGHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

David K. Allen, Allen & Allen, Portland, Or., for defendant-appellant.

Stephen F. Peifer, Asst. U.S. Atty., Portland, Or., for plaintiff-appellee.

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.

Before TANG and SKOPIL, Circuit Judges, and McKIBBEN, * District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

This matter returns to us following an order from the United States Supreme Court. See United States v. Cunningham, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 2580, 110 L.Ed.2d 261 (1990). The Court vacated our prior opinion, United States v. Cunningham, 878 F.2d 311 (9th Cir.1989), and remanded for our further consideration in light of Taylor v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). In our prior opinion we reversed the district court's imposition of an enhanced criminal sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924 (1988). Cunningham, 878 F.2d at 312. In light of Taylor, we must now affirm that sentence.

Randall Cunningham was indicted on one count of being a felon in illegal possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(g)(1). The government sought an enhanced sentence, charging that Cunningham had three prior felony convictions. Under the Armed Career Criminal Act, an individual who transports a firearm in interstate commerce and has three previous convictions for a violent felony or a serious drug offense "shall be fined not more than $25,000 and imprisoned not less than fifteen years." 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(e)(1). Cunningham argued to the district court that his prior Oregon state conviction for second-degree burglary should not be considered because it was not a "violent felony." The district court rejected Cunningham's argument and imposed a sentence of twenty years' imprisonment.

On appeal we noted that the statute defines "violent felony" to include "burglary." Cunningham, 878 F.2d at 312 (citing 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)). Nevertheless, we concluded that Cunningham's second-degree burglary conviction could not be used for enhancement purposes because we had previously held that Congress intended the term "burglary" in the Act to mean only common law burglary. Id. (citing United States v. Chatman, 869 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir.1989)). Under Oregon law a person commits burglary in the second-degree if he or she "enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein." Or.Rev.Stat. Sec. 164.215(1). Because Oregon's second-degree burglary statute does not contain all of the elements of common law burglary, we concluded that we were compelled to vacate Cunningham's enhanced sentence. Cunningham, 878 F.2d at 312.

After our decision in Cunningham, the Supreme Court rejected the use of the common law definition of burglary for determining whether sentence enhancement is proper under section 924(e). Taylor, 110 S.Ct. at 2158. The Court adopted a "generic" definition of burglary, concluding that "a person has been convicted of burglary for purposes of a Sec. 924(e) enhancement if he is convicted of any crime, regardless of its exact definition or label, having the basic elements of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • U.S. v. Grisel
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • June 5, 2007
    ...Dissent by Judge BEA. GRABER, Circuit Judge. We took this case en banc primarily to reexamine the validity of United States v. Cunningham, 911 F.2d 361 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam). In Cunningham, we held that second-degree burglary under Oregon law is a categorical burglary offense under th......
  • U.S. v. McDougherty
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • November 28, 1990
    ...burglary meant common-law burglary. 869 F.2d at 527. That holding has been overruled by Taylor. See United States v. Cunningham, 911 F.2d 361, 362-63 (9th Cir.1990).Even were we to apply the reasoning of Chatman, however, we would still conclude that the robbery statute under which McDoughe......
  • Thaw v. Lynch
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • March 15, 2016
  • Russell v. Hug
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • January 4, 2002
    ... ... Our jurisdiction to review final judgments of the district courts, conferred by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, does not authorize us to engage in supervisory oversight of administrative actions of the district courts. See United States v. Walton, 693 F.2d 925, 926-27 (9th Cir ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT