Blount

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Blount appeals his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1) and sentence *653 under § 924(e), arguing that his state burglary convictions were not proper predicate offenses “punishable ... for a term exceeding one year.” 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (g)(1), 924(e). An Oregon state burglary conviction under Or.Rev.Stat. § 164.215 is punishable by five years imprisonment, Or.Rev.Stat. § 161.605(3), though under the relevant state sentencing guidelines, the defendant could not have been imprisoned more than one year.

Nevertheless, these state convictions satisfy the predicate offense requirements for a conviction under § 922(g)(1) and imprisonment under § 924(e) because the statutory maximum, five years, is “a term exceeding one year.” See United States v. Murillo, 422 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,” as such crimes are defined by statute, is referencing the statutory maximum, not the guidelines maximum).

State v. Dilts, 337 Or. 645 , 103 P.3d 95 (Or.2004), concerned a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights as construed by Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). As…