United States v. Clark , 373 F. App'x 365 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4130
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL MAURICE CLARK,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-4131
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL MAURICE CLARK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00048-WO-1; 1:08-cr-00053-WO-1)
Submitted: March 29, 2010 Decided: April 12, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
Senior Litigator, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Anand P. Ramaswamy,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Maurice Clark pled guilty to one count of
interference with commerce by robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1951 (2006), and one count of bank robbery in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2006), and was sentenced as a career offender
to 160 months’ imprisonment. Clark appeals his sentence,
contending that the district court erred in finding that he was
a career offender within the meaning of U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 4B1.1 (2007). We affirm.
A defendant must be sentenced as a career offender if:
(1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old at
the time the defendant committed the instant offense
of conviction; (2) the instant offense of conviction
is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a
controlled substance offense; and (3) the defendant
has at least two prior felony convictions of either a
crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.
USSG § 4B1.1(a).
On appeal, Clark argues that the district court erred
in finding that his prior New Jersey conviction for theft from a
person was a crime of violence within the meaning of USSG
§ 4B1.2(a). A “crime of violence” is an offense under federal
or state law, punishable by imprisonment over 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
3
serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” USSG
§ 4B1.2(a).
Clark had prior New Jersey felony convictions for
theft from a person and for felony robbery. In the district
court, Clark conceded that his prior conviction for felony
robbery was a crime of violence, but argued that his theft from
a person conviction was not a crime of violence because the New
Jersey court in that case found two mitigating circumstances:
(1) Clark’s conduct did not cause or threaten serious harm; and
(2) Clark did not contemplate that his conduct would cause or
threaten serious harm. Clark contended that under these
circumstances, the district court could not find that his prior
conviction for theft from a person involved conduct that
presented a serious potential risk of physical injury to
another. The district court, relying on Begay v. United States,
553 U.S. 137, 128 S. Ct. 1581 (2008), found that Clark’s prior
New Jersey conviction for felony theft from a person was similar
in kind and in degree of risk posed to burglary from a dwelling.
We agree.
Whether Clark’s prior New Jersey conviction qualifies
as a crime of violence under USSG § 4B1.2(a) is a legal issue we
review de novo. See United States v. Dickerson, 77 F.3d 774,
775 (4th Cir. 1996). Because the language defining a crime of
violence in § 4B1.2(a) is nearly identical to the language
4
defining a violent felony in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006), this
court looks to its case law interpreting both sections when
examining whether a prior crime involves conduct that presents a
serious potential risk of physical injury to another. United
States v. Roseboro, 551 F.3d 226, 229 n.2 (4th Cir. 2009).
This court recently held that theft from a person
under North Carolina law is a crime of violence within the
meaning of USSG § 4B.1.2(a). See United States v. Jarmon, ___
F.3d ___, 2010 WL 679053 (4th Cir. February 23, 2010). Like the
North Carolina statute under which Jarmon was convicted, the New
Jersey statute provides that one of the elements of theft in the
third degree includes property taken “from the person of a
victim.” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:20-2(b)(2)(D) (West 2005 & Supp.
2009). The “taking of property from the person of another from
an area within his immediate custody and control . . . raises
the danger of confrontation [between thief and victim] and
involves an invasion of the victim’s person and privacy.”
State v. Harrison, 373 A.2d 680, 684 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
1977) (interpreting New Jersey larceny from the person statute);
State v. Blow, 334 A.2d 341, 343 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
1975) (same).
In comparing this crime with the enumerated offenses,
the district court correctly applied the Begay analysis to find
that the offense is a crime of violence. See Jarmon, 2010 WL
5
679053, at *2-*4 (applying Begay analysis to North Carolina
theft from a person statute and finding it to be crime of
violence). Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed by the
district court. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
6