Fisher
United States v. Fisher
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Defendant-Appellant Rodney A. Fisher appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the handgun that officers seized from a motel room in which Fisher and Jamie Boulet were staying. The government cross-appeals Fisher’s sentence. It argues that the district court erred in holding that attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle in violation of Wash. Rev.Code Ann. § 46.61.024 (West 1987) (amended 2003) is not a “violent felony” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e)(2)(B)(ii). Therefore, the government argues, the district court erred in holding that Fisher could not be sentenced as an armed career criminal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e) (“Armed Career Criminal Act”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (b)(1). We affirm *676 Fisher’s conviction and, subject to potential vacatur or an Ameline limited remand, we also affirm his sentence. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history, we do not repeat it here except to the extent necessary for our disposition.