Piccolo

United States v. Piccolo

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 3, 200604-10577California2,911 words

Opinion

Opinion

facts of Mr. Piccolo’s case are about as far removed from a crime of violence of any — as any crime of violence I’ve per- sonally had in front of me . . . . It’s — this is a halfway house,

§ 2113(a). 2 These included a 1994 conviction for burglary under Nevada Revised Statutes 205.060; a 1995 conviction for attempted burglary under Nevada Revised Statutes 205.060 (burglary) and 193.330 (attempt); and the 1998 federal conviction for Bank Robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), for which Piccolo was confined at the time of his escape. 3660 UNITED STATES v. PICCOLO he did walk away, there was no threat to anyone . . . .” Ulti- mately, however, the district court ruled that under the analy- sis set forth in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), all escapes, as a matter of law, constitute crimes of violence. Piccolo was sentenced as a career offender to 37 months under the enhanced Sentencing Guidelines range. This timely appeal followed.

II

We review the district court’s interpretation of the Sentenc- ing Guidelines de novo. United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1279 (9th Cir. 2006). We also review de novo the deter- mination of career-offender…

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.