United States v. Ashford Spencer

Good Law
724 F.3d 1133·2013 WL 3870731·2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15397
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 29, 201312-10078California6,326 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bybee, J.

Ashford Kaipo Spencer was convicted of two federal drug-trafficking felonies. At sentencing, the district court determined that Spencer was a “career offender” under § 4B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines because Spencer had two prior convictions for “crimes of violence,” as defined in § 4B1.2(a), In making this determination, the district court applied the “categorical approach” to conclude that Spencer’s prior conviction for criminal property damage in the first degree under § 708-820(l)(a) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes constituted a conviction for a “crime of violence.”

On appeal, Spencer argues that the district court erred in sentencing him as a career offender because § 708-820(l)(a) is not a crime of violence as defined by the Sentencing Guidelines. In the alternative, Spencer argues that the “residual clause” of the definition of “crime of violence” contained in § 4B1.2(a)(2), which the district court concluded applied to him, is unconstitutionally vague.

We agree with the decision of the district court, and therefore hold that § 708-820(l)(a) is categorically a crime of violence under the residual clause of § 4B 1.2(a) (2) of the Sentencing Guidelines. Spencer’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.