U.S. v. Harris
| Decision Date | 24 July 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-10370.,08-10370. |
| Citation | 572 F.3d 1065 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David L. HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Jason F. Carr, Federal Public Defender's Office, Las Vegas, NV, for the defendant-appellant.
Peter S. Levitt, United States Attorney's Office, Las Vegas, NV, for the plaintiffs-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00295-KJD-GWF.
Before: BARRY G. SILVERMAN, RICHARD R. CLIFTON, and MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judges.
David L. Harris appeals his sentence following his conviction for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We review de novo the district court's determination that Harris qualified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. United States v. Crawford, 520 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.
Harris's Nevada convictions for robbery and attempted robbery categorically qualify as crimes of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. Like the California statute we analyzed in United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881, 892 (9th Cir.2008), any conduct under Nev.Rev.Stat. § 200.380 that did not satisfy the generic definition of robbery, such as threats to property, would satisfy the generic definition of extortion. Harris's attempts to distinguish Becerril-Lopez based on Nevada's interpretation of the "fear of injury" requirement are inapposite: the California statute addressed in Becerril-Lopez also permitted a conviction based on "fear of an unlawful injury." 541 F.3d at 890-91. The Nevada statute's statement that "[t]he degree of force used is immaterial if it is used to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property" also does not distinguish it from the California statute analyzed in Becerril-Lopez. See, e.g., People v. Garcia, 45 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 256 (1996) (), overruled on other grounds by People v. Mosby, 33 Cal.4th 353, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 262, 92 P.3d 841, 847 n. 2 (2004). Thus, like the California robbery statute analyzed in Becerril-Lopez, a conviction under Nev.Rev. Stat. § 200.380 categorically qualifies as a crime of violence for purposes of the career offender sentencing enhancement.
AFFIRMED.
* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. S...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Chandler
...Guidelines because “ Nev.Rev.Stat. § 200.380 ... satisf[ies] the generic definition of extortion.” See United States v. Harris, 572 F.3d 1065, 1065–66 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam). Burglary is “an unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or other structure, with inten......
-
United States v. Savage
...guideline. See Alvarado , 2016 WL 6302517 at *7 (citing, inter alia , Becerril , 541 F.3d at 891–92 ); see also U . S . v. Harris , 572 F.3d 1065, 1066 (9th Cir. 2009) (pursuant to the reasoning of Becerril , a conviction under Nevada's robbery statute is a crime of violence by force of the......
-
United States v. Givens
...Ninth Circuit authority, Nevada attempted robbery is a crime of violence under the career-offender guideline. United States v. Harris , 572 F.3d 1065, 1066 (9th Cir. 2009).1. Only the enumerated-offense clause and the guideline's commentary are relevant to this caseAbsent the residual claus......
-
United States v. Molinar
...satisfies the generic definition of robbery, regardless of what degree of force that is in a particular instance. United States v. Harris , 572 F.3d 1065, 1066 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.380 ) (holding that a statute stating "[t]he degree of force used is immaterial if i......