United States v. Mason ( 1997 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 7 1997
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 96-3352
(D.C. No. 95-CR-10085-ALL)
MICHAEL A. MASON, (D. Kan.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, LOGAN, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Defendant pleaded guilty to a single charge of escape from federal custody
and was sentenced to forty months’ confinement, based on the district court’s
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
classification of defendant as a career offender under section 4B1.1 of the United
States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.). Defendant’s sole challenge on appeal is
to the enhancement of his sentence. He contends that his offense, which was
walking away from an unsecured halfway house, does not constitute a “crime of
violence” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and, therefore, that he should not be
classified as a career offender.
“Whether a defendant was erroneously classified as a career offender is a
question of law subject to de novo review.” United States v. Mitchell, 113 F.3d
1528, 1532 (10th Cir. 1997). Our disposition of this case is governed by our
recent opinion in Mitchell, 113 F.3d at 1533, in which we held that escape, by its
very nature, is a crime of violence, even if it involves only walking away from an
unsecured correctional facility. See also United States v. Gosling, 39 F.3d 1140,
1142 (10th Cir. 1994). We, therefore, conclude that the district court did not err
in using defendant’s present escape conviction to classify him as a career
offender.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas
is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Wade Brorby
Circuit Judge
-2-