Moncrief

United States v. Moncrief

Good Law
356 F. App'x 11
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 23, 2009No. 08-10417California258 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Dennis Moncrief (“Moncrief’) appeals his 180-month sentence imposed pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). We affirm.

Under the “categorical approach” delineated by the Supreme Court in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 , 110 S.Ct. *12 2148 , 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), the Tennessee aggravated burglary statute is broader than the generic definition of burglary because it extends to tents and motor homes. TenmCode § 39-14-403; United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844, 848-49 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (“building or structure” as used in Taylor limited to structures designed for occupancy and intended for use in one place). Nonetheless, the Tennessee aggravated burglary statute satisfies the ACCA’s “residual clause” because it “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e)(2)(B)(ii). Because the Tennessee statute is limited to places that are “designed or adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons” and thus likely to be occupied, it presents the same risk of confrontation and physical injury as the generic crime. See United States v. Mayer, 560 F.3d 948, 963 (9th Cir.), cert.…

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.