united states v. carrigan, 1st cir. (2013)
TRANSCRIPT
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 1/24
United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit
No. 11- 1916
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,
Appel l ee,
v.
LAMAR CARRI GAN,
Def endant , Appel l ant .
APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[ Hon. Nancy Ger t ner , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]
Bef or e
Tor r uel l a, St ahl and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.
Shar on Fr ay- Wi t zer , f or appel l ant .Randal l E. Kr omm, Ass i st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h whom
Car men M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef f or appel l ee.
J ul y 19, 2013
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 2/24
TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Lamar Car r i gan ( " Car r i gan" )
pl ed gui l t y t o one count of bei ng a f el on i n possessi on of a
f i r ear m, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 1) . He di d so wi t hout
a pl ea agr eement and wi t hout r eser vi ng t he r i ght t o appeal t he
deni al of hi s mot i on t o suppr ess t he f i r ear m. He was sent enced
under t he Ar med Car eer Cr i mi nal Act ( " ACCA" ) , 18 U. S. C. § 924( e) ,
t o 15 year s' i mpr i sonment and t hr ee year s of supervi sed r el ease.
He appeal s hi s convi ct i on on sever al gr ounds. Fi r st , he
ar gues t hat t he ent r y of a gui l t y pl ea wi t hout a r eser vat i on of t he
r i ght t o appeal t he deni al of hi s mot i on t o suppr ess was t he r esul t
of i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel . Second, he cont ends t hat he
suf f er ed pr ej udi ce f r om t he f ai l ur e t o r eser ve t he r i ght t o appeal
sai d mot i on and t hat t he pol i ce nei t her had r easonabl e suspi ci on t o
st op hi m nor pr obabl e cause t o ar r est hi m. Fi nal l y, r egar di ng hi s
sent ence, Car r i gan argues t hat he does not qual i f y as an armed
car eer cr i mi nal ( " ACC" ) , and t hat t he ACCA' s r esi dual cl ause i s
unconst i t ut i onal l y vague. We af f i r m.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Accor di ng t o 911 cal l t r anscr i pt s, at 1: 30 a. m. on
Febr uary 1, 2008, t he Bost on Pol i ce Depar t ment ( " BPD" ) r ecei ved a
911 cal l f r om a mot or i st who sai d t hat t he dr i ver of an Acur a had
pul l ed up al ongsi de hi m and i dent i f i ed hi msel f as " t he Bost on
Pol i ce" at t he i nt er sect i on of Col umbi a Road and Washi ngt on St r eet
i n Bost on. The dr i ver of t he Acur a asked i f t he mot or i st was
-2-
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 3/24
al one, t hen t ol d hi m t o pul l over . When t he cal l er pul l ed hi s
vehi cl e over , t he dr i ver of t he Acur a got out of hi s car ,
appr oached t he mot or i st ' s vehi cl e and poi nt ed a gun at t he
mot or i st ' s f ace. The mot or i st put hi s car i n dr i ve and sped away.
Soon af t er , t he Acur a sped past t he mot or i st down Qui ncy St r eet
t owar d Bever l y. The cal l er r epor t ed t o t he 911 oper at or t hat he
was f ol l owi ng t he Acur a and i t s l i cense pl at e number was 446A20.
The mot or i st sai d t he col or of t he Acur a was navy bl ue or bl ack,
and i dent i f i ed t he dr i ver as a bl ack man wear i ng a si deways,
br own- and- bl ue hat ( whi ch he al so descr i bed as t wo- t oned) , a bl ack
l eat her j acket and baggy j eans. The cal l er t ol d t he di spat cher hi s
name was J asmani e Gonzál ez, a name t he pol i ce coul d not l at er f i nd
by searchi ng pol i ce r ecor ds. He al so pr ovi ded hi s phone number so
he coul d be cal l ed back.
When t he 911 di spat cher cal l ed t he mot or i st back and
asked hi m where he was because an of f i cer needed t o t ake a r epor t ,
t he cal l er st at ed t hat he was i n Rosl i ndal e. However , he di d not
pr ovi de hi s home addr ess, decl i ned t o f i l e a pol i ce r epor t and
r ef used t o be i nvol ved i n t he mat t er any f ur t her . The di spat cher
cal l ed t he mot or i st a second t i me f or addi t i onal i nf or mat i on bef or e
br oadcast i ng t he r epor t t o pol i ce uni t s i n t he ar ea. The
di spat cher det ai l ed t he i nci dent and gave t he cal l er ' s descr i pt i on
of t he car , dr i ver , and t he r epor t ed l i cense pl at e number .
-3-
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 4/24
Accor di ng t o BPD Ser geant Thomas Br ooks' t est i mony dur i ng
t he suppr essi on hear i ng, t en mi nut es af t er t he di spat cher ' s
br oadcast , Sgt . Br ooks obser ved a vehi cl e f i t t i ng t he descr i pt i on
of t he car descr i bed by t he cal l er par ked on Sout hwood St r eet ,
Bost on, a shor t di st ance f r om a pub. The car was unoccupi ed.
Ser geant Br ooks r epor t ed t he car ' s l i cense pl at e number t o t he
di spat ch as 446AT2. The di spat cher t hen r esponded t hat t he car was
r egi st er ed t o an owner i n Nor wel l . Anot her of f i cer t hen br oadcast
t hat he bel i eved t he car was used by "Lamar Car r i ngt on, " who was
not t he r egi st er ed owner r epor t ed by di spat ch. At t hi s t i me, mor e
of f i cer s ar r i ved i n t he ar ea, i ncl udi ng Ser geant Det ect i ve J ohn
Fi t zger al d, who was i n pl ai n cl ot hes and dr i vi ng an unmar ked pol i ce
car . Fi t zger al d, who al so t est i f i ed, par ked across the st r eet f r om
t he Acur a. Several mar ked pol i ce car s wai t ed by t he near by
i nt er sect i on of Sout hwood and Edgewood, wher e t he Acur a woul d most
l i kel y have t o pass.
J ust bef or e 2: 00 a. m. , Fi t zger al d br oadcas t over t he
r adi o t hat he saw t he l i ght s i n t he Acur a t ur n on, i ndi cat i ng t hat
t he car was bei ng unl ocked by r emot e cont r ol . Soon af t er , a bl ack
mal e wear i ng a hat , l eat her j acket and j eans ent er ed t he vehi cl e
and began dr i vi ng t owar d t he i nt er sect i on wher e t he mar ked BPD car s
wai t ed. Fi t zger al d f ol l owed t he Acur a, mai nt ai ni ng a di st ance of
60 t o 70 f eet . As t he Acur a came around a cur ve, i t was possi bl e
f or t he dr i ver t o see t he mar ked car s at t he i nt er sect i on. The
-4-
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 5/24
dr i ver of t he Acur a t hen made a r i ght t ur n and pul l ed i nt o a
r esi dent i al dr i veway, dr i vi ng t o t he ver y end of i t and t ur ni ng t he
car ' s l i ght s of f . Fi t zger al d s t opped hi s car and t ol d al l of f i cer s
i n t he ar ea t o " st and by. "
The dr i ver backed down t he dr i veway, opened hi s door
br i ef l y, and t hen accel er at ed back up t he dr i veway. Sever al
of f i cer s, some wi t h t hei r weapons dr awn, appr oached t he vehi cl e.
The of f i cer s i dent i f i ed t hemsel ves as Bost on Pol i ce and t ol d t he
dr i ver t o r ai se hi s hands. One of t he of f i cer s opened t he
passenger ' s si de door , t ur ned of f t he i gni t i on, and put t he car i n
par k. Anot her of f i cer t hen pul l ed t he dr i ver , who was l at er
i dent i f i ed as Car r i gan, out of t he dr i ver ' s si de door . Car r i gan
was handcuf f ed, pushed t o t he gr ound, and pat - f r i sked. The
of f i cer s f ound a l oaded semi - aut omat i c f i r ear mi n Car r i gan' s j acket
pocket .
On November 18, 2010, af t er bei ng i ndi ct ed on one count
of bei ng a f el on i n possessi on of a f i r ear m, Car r i gan f i l ed a
mot i on t o suppr ess t he f i r ear m and ammuni t i on, al l egi ng t hat t hey
wer e t he r esul t of an unl awf ul sear ch and sei zur e. Car r i gan
cont ended t hat t he of f i cer s l acked pr obabl e cause t o ar r est hi mand
l acked r easonabl e suspi ci on t o even st op hi m. The di st r i ct cour t
hel d a hear i ng on Febr uar y 8, 2011, on Car r i gan' s mot i on t o
suppr ess, where some of t he r ecor ded 911 cal l s were pl ayed. The
j udge st at ed t hat t her e was not much of a quest i on on t he
-5-
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 6/24
r easonabl e suspi ci on poi nt , and t hat i t was l i kel y t hat pr obabl e
cause f or t he ar r est woul d be est abl i shed as wel l , but want ed t o
l i st en t o t he r ecor di ngs i n f ul l bef or e f or mal l y di sposi ng of t he
mot i on. The j udge deni ed Car r i gan' s mot i on t o suppr ess on Febr uary
14, 2011, vi a el ect r oni c or der , not i ng t hat a memor andum woul d
f ol l ow.
On Mar ch 3, 2011, Car r i gan pl ed gui l t y. He di d so
wi t hout secur i ng a pl ea agr eement and wi t hout r eser vi ng t he r i ght
t o appeal t he deni al of hi s suppr essi on mot i on. At t he pl ea
hear i ng, t he government not ed t hat Car r i gan woul d be f aci ng a
mi ni mum of 15 year s i n pr i son because of hi s s t at us as an ACC.
Car r i gan' s at t or ney st at ed t o t he cour t t hat he had expl ai ned t hi s
t o Car r i gan, but al so sai d he i nt ended t o r ai se obj ect i ons t o
Car r i gan' s st at us as an ACC at t he sent enci ng hear i ng. The cour t
accept ed Car r i gan' s pl ea.
A Pr e- Sent ence Repor t ( " PSR" ) t hat i ssued on Apr i l 15,
2011, cl assi f i ed Car r i gan as an ACC. Car r i gan chal l enged hi s
st at us as an ACC, ar gui ng t hat he di d not possess t he r equi si t e
t hr ee pr i or convi ct i ons f or vi ol ent f el oni es .
Based on Gui del i ne cal cul at i ons and Car r i gan' s ACC
st at us, t he cour t sent enced hi m t o t he mandat or y mi ni mum of 15
year s' i mpr i sonment as pr escr i bed by t he ACCA. Af t er t he sent ence
was i mposed, def ense counsel asked t he j udge t o i ssue t he
pr evi ousl y pr omi sed memor andum r egar di ng t he deni al of Car r i gan' s
-6-
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 7/24
mot i on t o suppr ess. The j udge r esponded wi t h sur pr i se, st at i ng
t hat , because Car r i gan had pl ed gui l t y shor t l y af t er t he deni al and
di d not r eser ve hi s r i ght t o appeal , she had not wr i t t en a
memor andum and woul d not i ssue one.
Car r i gan f i l ed t hi s t i mel y appeal . We t ake each of hi s
argument s i n t ur n.
II. Analysis
A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Car r i gan' s f i r st ar gument on appeal i s t hat hi s counsel
was i nef f ect i ve because he advi sed Car r i gan t o ent er a st r ai ght
pl ea wi t hout i nf or mi ng hi m of t he consequences of not pr eservi ng
hi s ri ght t o appeal t he deni al of hi s suppr essi on mot i on. I n
suppor t of hi s ar gument , he posi t s t hat hi s at t or ney was act ual l y
unaware t hat Car r i gan woul d be unabl e t o appeal t he deni al of t he
mot i on t o suppr ess i f he pl ed wi t hout maki ng a r eser vat i on.
Accor di ng t o Car r i gan, i t i s appar ent f r om t he r ecor d t hat hi s
at t or ney was sur pr i sed when t he di st r i ct cour t st at ed he woul d be
unabl e t o appeal t he or der . 1
1 Car r i gan poi nt s t o t he f ol l owi ng exchange, whi ch t ook pl aceaf t er t he sent enci ng:
MR. DEMI SSI E: Your Honor , we had a mot i on t o suppresshear i ng, and t hat was deni ed, and a f i ndi ng and r ul i ngshave not been f i l ed.
THE COURT: But he' s pl ed gui l t y. He pl ed gui l t y wi t hout- -
MR. DEMI SSI E: Pr i or t o pl eadi ng gui l t y, you had a mot i on
-7-
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 8/24
To show t hat hi s Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o counsel was
vi ol at ed, Car r i gan must est abl i sh t hat : ( 1) hi s at t or ney' s
per f or mance was def i ci ent under an obj ect i ve st andar d of
r easonabl eness; and ( 2) hi s def ense suf f er ed pr ej udi ce as a r esul t .
St r i ckl and v. Washi ngt on, 466 U. S. 668, 687- 88, 692 ( 1984) . To
demonst r at e pr ej udi ce, Car r i gan must " show a r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y
t hat t he end r esul t of t he cr i mi nal pr ocess woul d have been more
f avor abl e" but f or def ense counsel ' s def i ci ent per f or mance.
Mi ssour i v. Fr ye, 132 S. Ct . 1399, 1409 ( 2012) ; see al so Uni t ed
St at es v. Moya, 676 F. 3d 1211, 1214 ( 10t h Ci r . 2012) . Fai l ur e t o
sat i sf y one of t he St r i ckl and pr ongs i s f at al and, t her ef or e, we
ar e f r ee t o t ackl e ei t her pr ong f i r st . See Uni t ed St at es v.
Capar ot t a, 676 F. 3d 213, 219- 220 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .
t o suppr ess - - THE COURT: No, I under st and t hat , but he pl ed gui l t y, nota condi t i onal pl ea, not a pl ea t hat woul d have pr eservedhi s r i ght s , but he pl ed gui l t y f ul l y.
MR. DEMI SSI E: Yes.
THE COURT: So I di dn' t f i ni sh t he f i ndi ngs because oncehe pl eads gui l t y and doesn' t pr eser ve t hat i ssue, t her e' sr eal l y no i ssue. Thi s was a f ul l pl ea, not a condi t i onalone, so I don' t t hi nk t hat you have an appel l at e basi s ont hat at al l .
MR. DEMI SSI E: Fr om t he deni al of t he mot i on t o suppr ess?
THE COURT: That ' s r i ght , because i f you want t o pl ea andpr eser ve your l egal r i ght s, you have t o do i t as acondi t i onal pl ea . . . .
-8-
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 9/24
As a gener al r ul e, i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel
cl ai ms must be r ai sed vi a a col l at er al at t ack, and not vi a di r ect
appeal . Uni t ed St at es v. Sol devi l a- López, 17 F. 3d 480, 485 ( 1st
Ci r . 1994) . We have, however , l ong r ecogni zed t hat " wher e t he
cr i t i cal f act s ar e not genui nel y i n di sput e and t he r ecor d i s
suf f i ci ent l y devel oped t o al l ow r easoned consi der at i on of an
i nef f ect i ve assi st ance cl ai m, " we can ent er t ai n i t . Capar ot t a, 676
F. 3d at 219 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Gonzál ez- Ar i mont , 268 F. 3d 8,
13 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ) . Bot h par t i es agr ee t hat t he r ecor d i s
suf f i ci ent l y devel oped f or t hi s cour t t o det er mi ne i f Car r i gan
suf f er ed pr ej udi ce by not r eser vi ng t he r i ght t o appeal . For t he
r easons st at ed bel ow, we f i nd t hat t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y
deni ed t he mot i on t o suppr ess and t hat , t her ef or e, Car r i gan f ai l s
t o show he suf f er ed pr ej udi ce. Consequent l y, we do not r each t he
quest i on of counsel ' s i nef f ect i veness. See Capar ot t a, 676 F. 3d at
219- 20.
B. The Motion to Suppress
1. Reasonable Suspicion to Conduct a Terry Stop
I n r evi ewi ng t he deni al of a mot i on t o suppr ess, we wi l l
r evi ew f i ndi ngs of f act f or cl ear er r or and l egal concl usi ons de
novo. Uni t ed St at es v. Br own, 500 F. 3d 48, 58 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . I n
t hi s case, t her e ar e no f act ual f i ndi ngs f or us t o r evi ew, gi ven
t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not have t o i ssue t he memor andum
set t i ng f or t h t he r at i onal e f or i t s deni al of t he mot i on t o
-9-
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 10/24
suppr ess af t er Car r i gan pl ed. We t hus r evi ew Car r i gan' s Four t h
Amendment cl ai m de novo.
Car r i gan f i r st ai ms t o est abl i sh t hat t he pol i ce undul y
r el i ed on t he i nf ormat i on pr ovi ded by an anonymous 911 t i pst er and
t hat t hey l acked r easonabl e suspi ci on t o conduct an i nvest i gat or y
st op.
Our i nqui r y i n t hi s r egar d i s, of cour se, gui ded by t he
Supr eme Cour t ' s wat er shed deci si on i n Ter r y v. Ohi o, 392 U. S. 1
( 1968) . I n Ter r y, t he Cour t del i neat ed t he basel i ne t est f or
det er mi ni ng t he const i t ut i onal i t y, under t he Four t h Amendment , of
i nvest i gat or y st ops conduct ed by pol i ce of f i cer s. Br own, 500 F. 3d
at 54. Under Ter r y, "[ p] ol i ce of f i cer s may l awf ul l y ef f ect an
i nvest i gat or y st op as l ong as t hey can ' poi nt t o speci f i c and
ar t i cul abl e f act s whi ch, t aken t oget her wi t h r at i onal i nf er ences
f r om t hose f act s, r easonabl y war r ant ' such an i nt r usi on. " I d.
( ci t i ng Ter r y, 392 U. S. at 21) . Reasonabl e suspi ci on i s a concept
t hat l i es somewhere bet ween a vi scer al hunch and pr obabl e cause.
See I l l i noi s v. War dl ow, 528 U. S. 119, 123 ( 2000) ( " r easonabl e
suspi ci on" i s a l ess demandi ng st andard t han pr obabl e cause and
r equi r es a showi ng consi der abl y l ess t han pr eponder ance of t he
evi dence" but st i l l r equi r es "at l east a mi ni mal l evel of obj ect i ve
j ust i f i cat i on f or maki ng t he st op" ) . Whet her t he of f i cer s had
enough i nf ormat i on t o possess r easonabl e suspi ci on " must be
eval uat ed t hr ough a br oad- based consi derat i on of al l t he at t endant
-10-
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 11/24
ci r cumst ances. " Br own, 500 F. 3d at 54 ( ci t i ng Fl or i da v. Royer ,
460 U. S. 491, 500 ( 1983) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Chhi en, 266 F. 3d 1, 5
( 1st Ci r . 2001) ) .
As r ecount ed above, a 911 cal l er r epor t ed bei ng t he
vi ct i m of an assaul t . He pr ovi ded a descr i pt i on of t he al l eged
per pet r at or of t he cr i me and of t he car he was dr i vi ng, a l i cense
pl at e number , t he di r ect i on t he vehi cl e was t r avel i ng and a phone
number wher e he was success f ul l y r eached t wi ce. He provi ded some
of t hi s i nf or mat i on t o t he 911 oper at or whi l e t he pur por t ed
per pet r at or ' s vehi cl e was st i l l al l egedl y i n hi s si ght . He was
t hen cal l ed back t wi ce and t wi ce he r ecount ed t he i nci dent i n a way
t hat seems r easonabl y consi st ent and coherent .
Car r i gan ar gues t hat t he descr i pt i on of t he cl ot hes t he
al l eged per pet r at or was wear i ng di f f er ed i n sever al aspect s f r om
what Car r i gan was wear i ng when t he pol i ce f i r st obser ved hi m
appr oachi ng t he car , and t hat , i n any case, t he descr i pt i on was
cor r obor at ed onl y i n i nnocent det ai l s. The cal l er sai d t he
per pet r at or of t he al l eged assaul t was wear i ng a br own- and- bl ue hat
( whi ch he al so descr i bed as t wo- t oned) , a bl ack l eat her j acket and
baggy j eans. Sgt . Fi t zger al d t est i f i ed dur i ng t he evi dent i ar y
hear i ng t hat , when he f i r st spot t ed Car r i gan comi ng out of t he bar ,
he was wear i ng a bl ue and orange hat ( wi t h al t ernat i ng bl ue and
or ange panel s al l t he way ar ound) , a br own l eat her j acket wi t h
orange square pat ches and bl ack j eans. We t hi nk t hat t he
-11-
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 12/24
descr i pt i ons suf f i ci ent l y mat ched and t hat , al t hough t he cal l er
st at ed t hat t he hat was br own and bl ue, and i t t ur ned out t o be
or ange and bl ue, t he di scr epancy i s not so l ar ge as t o war r ant a
f i ndi ng of an i mpr oper i dent i f i cat i on. On t he same t oken, t he
cal l er descr i bed t he j acket as bl ack l eat her when, accor di ng t o
Sgt . Fi t zger al d, i t was a l eat her j acket wi t h br own and or ange
pat ches. We, however , do not t hi nk t he l ack of a per f ect mat ch i s
di sposi t i ve i n t hi s case.
Car r i gan f ur t her ar gues t hat , asi de f r omcor r obor at i on of
i nnocent and r eadi l y observabl e det ai l s r egar di ng hi s gener al
appear ance, t he t i pst er di d not pr ovi de i nf or mat i on t hat coul d be
deemed r el i abl e. I n f act , he says, t he cal l er onl y pr ovi ded a
l i cense pl at e and car t ype, whi ch ar e al so readi l y obser vabl e
el ement s t hat coul d have been used, f or exampl e, by someone t r yi ng
t o f r ame hi m. He ci t es Uni t ed St at es v. Mont ei r o, 447 F. 3d 39 ( 1st
Ci r . 2006) , i n suppor t of hi s ar gument t hat cor r obor at i on of a
l i cense pl at e number does not pr ovi de r easonabl e suspi ci on. I n
Mont ei r o, we r evi ewed t he r el i abi l i t y of a t i p r ecei ved t hr ough a
t hi r d par t y t hat i ncl uded a l i cense pl at e number f or a car t hat was
spot t ed by pol i ce days af t er t he t i p was r ecei ved. We f ound t hat
t he mer e of f er i ng of a l i cense pl at e number by a t i pst er , al t hough
pr ovi di ng "a sol i d means of i dent i [ f yi ng] " t he suspect , di d not hi ng
t o cor r obor at e t he t i pst er ' s asser t i on t hat t he suspect had
commi t t ed a cr i me. I d. at 47. We al so st at ed, however , t hat t he
-12-
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 13/24
amount of i nf or mat i on " r equi r ed t o est abl i sh t he r equi si t e quant um
of suspi ci on" depends on t he r el i abi l i t y of t he t i p. I d. at 48.
That i s, t he mor e unr el i abl e a t i p appear s, t he mor e i nf or mat i on
wi l l be r equi r ed t o est abl i sh r easonabl e suspi ci on.
Car r i gan' s ar gument mi ght be st r onger i f t he pol i ce had
r el i ed sol el y on t he cal l er ' s i nf or mat i on and moved i n t o det ai n
Car r i gan as soon as t hey spot t ed hi ml eavi ng t he bar and wal ki ng t o
t he Acur a. But t he i nf or mat i on t hat t he pol i ce had at t he t i me
t hey conduct ed t he Ter r y st op di d not consi st of i nf or mat i on
pr ovi ded by t he 911 cal l er al one. I ndeed, once Car r i gan got i nt o
t he Acur a, t he pol i ce began obser vi ng hi m. They saw t hat , af t er
dr i vi ng down t he st r eet , Car r i gan appar ent l y at t empt ed t o avoi d
sever al pol i ce car s t hat wer e bl ocki ng t he upcomi ng i nt er sect i on
and act ed suspi ci ousl y when he ent er ed a dr i veway, dr ove t o t he
ver y end of i t and shut of f t he car ' s l i ght s. The pol i ce t hen
f ur t her obser ved Car r i gan back down t he dr i veway al most al l t he way
t o t he st r eet , open and cl ose hi s door and dr i ve up t he dr i veway
once agai n. The Supr eme Cour t has st at ed t hat " evasi ve behavi or i s
anot her per t i nent f act or i n det er mi ni ng r easonabl e suspi ci on. "
Wardl ow, 528 U. S. at 124. Gi ven what t he of f i cer s al r eady knew,
t hey r easonabl y i nt er pr et ed Car r i gan' s behavi or as unpr ovoked
f l i ght war r ant i ng f ur t her i nvest i gat i on. Al t hough i t i s wel l -
set t l ed t hat i ndi vi dual s have a f undament al r i ght t o be l ef t al one,
i t i s al so set t l ed t hat " [ f ] l i ght , by i t s ver y nat ur e, i s not
-13-
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 14/24
' goi ng about one' s busi ness ' ; i n f act , i t i s j ust t he opposi t e. "
I d. at 125. I t was at t hi s poi nt , once t hey had mat ched t he
descr i pt i on pr ovi ded by t he cal l er and had obser ved Car r i gan
behavi ng suspi ci ousl y, t hat t he of f i cer s deci ded t o move i n.
A br oad- based consi der at i on of t he di f f er ent pi eces of
i ndi vi dual i nf or mat i on t he pol i ce possessed up t o t he poi nt of t he
st op l eads us t o concl ude t hat t he of f i cer s had r easonabl e
suspi ci on t o i ni t i at e a Ter r y st op. See Br own, 500 F. 3d at 54. We
emphasi ze t hat i t i s t he sum t ot al of t he avai l abl e i nf or mat i on
t hat j ust i f i es t he f i ndi ng of r easonabl e suspi ci on; no si ngl e
i ndi vi dual pi ece of i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded by ei t her t he cal l er or by
t he pol i ce' s di r ect obser vat i on of Car r i gan woul d be enough, on i t s
own, t o j ust i f y t he Ter r y st op. We now t ur n t o Car r i gan' s second
argument r egardi ng suppr essi on: t hat t he Ter r y st op became a de
f act o ar r est , and t hat t he pol i ce of f i cer s l acked pr obabl e cause t o
ar r est hi m.
2. Probable Cause to Make an Arrest
Accor di ng t o Sgt . Fi t zger al d, once Car r i gan had dr i ven up
t he dr i veway a second t i me, sever al of f i cer s, i ncl udi ng hi msel f ,
appr oached t he Acur a. Some of t he of f i cer s had t hei r guns dr awn.
The of f i cer s yel l ed t o Car r i gan t o show hi s hands. Two of f i cer s
t hen ent er ed t he Acur a t hr ough t he passenger - si de door , t ur ned of f
t he engi ne and t ook physi cal cont r ol of Car r i gan. Once t he
of f i cer s had Car r i gan on t he gr ound and on hi s s t omach, t hey
-14-
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 15/24
handcuf f ed hi m and pat t ed hi m down. They di scover ed a f i r ear m i n
t he f r ont l ef t pocket of hi s j acket . Accor di ng t o t he PSR,
Car r i gan di sobeyed t he command t o show hi s hands. Car r i gan di d not
di sput e t hi s asser t i on i n hi s obj ect i ons t o t he PSR.
Car r i gan ar gues t hat , as soon as t he of f i cer s physi cal l y
went i nt o t he car and pul l ed hi m out , t he Ter r y st op became a de
f act o ar r est . He cont ends t hat , si nce t he of f i cer s l acked pr obabl e
cause t o ar r est hi m, t he sei zur e of t he f i r ear m occur r ed i n t he
cont ext of an i l l egal ar r est and shoul d be suppr essed. The
gover nment , f or i t s par t , ar gues t hat t he pol i ce may t ake physi cal
cont r ol of and handcuf f a per son wi t hout t ur ni ng a Ter r y st op i nt o
a de f act o ar r est when i t i s necessar y "t o pr ot ect t hei r own saf et y
and t he saf et y of ot her s i n t he ar ea. " Uni t ed St at es v. Mohammed,
630 F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) , cer t deni ed 131 S. Ct . 2127 ( 2011) .
A de f act o ar r est mat er i al i zes "when a r easonabl e per son
i n t he suspect ' s posi t i on woul d have under st ood, gi ven t he
ci r cumst ances, t hat he was essent i al l y under ar r est . " I d. . I t can
saf el y be sai d t hat when r easonabl e peopl e ar e f or cef ul l y pul l ed
out of a car and handcuf f ed, t hey wi l l gener al l y under st and
t hemsel ves t o be under ar r est . We have st at ed, however , t hat due
t o t he wi de and unpr edi ct abl e ar r ay of scenar i os of f i cer s f ace i n
t he cour se of conf r ont i ng suspect s, " t he t ouchst one i s t he
r easonabl eness of t he measur e under t aken t o quel l or conf i r m t he
of f i cer s ' suspi ci ons. " I d. ( quot i ng Kl aucke v. Dal y, 595 F. 3d
-15-
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 16/24
20, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ) ( al t er at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks
omi t t ed) . When t he gover nment i nt ends t o j ust i f y t he use of
handcuf f s i n t he cont ext of a Ter r y st op i t must " poi nt t o some
speci f i c f act or ci r cumst ance t hat coul d have suppor t ed a
r easonabl e bel i ef " t hat t he use of handcuf f s was necessar y. Uni t ed
St at es v. Meadows, 571 F. 3d 131, 141 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( quot i ng
Uni t ed St at es v. Acost a- Col ón, 157 F. 3d 9, 18- 19 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ) .
The gover nment has i ndeed poi nt ed t o speci f i c
ci r cumst ances t hat suppor t t he of f i cer s' r easonabl e bel i ef t hat
r est r ai ni ng Car r i gan wi t h handcuf f s was necessar y t o conduct t he
Ter r y st op. I t speci f i cal l y ar gues t hat Car r i gan had not put t he
car i n par k and t hat t he engi ne was st i l l r unni ng when t he of f i cer s
appr oached t he vehi cl e, whi ch i ncr eased t he dangerousness of t he
si t uat i on gi ven t hat he coul d have used t he car as a weapon. The
evi dence pr esent ed dur i ng t he evi dent i ar y hear i ng, i . e. , Sgt .
Fi t zger al d' s t est i mony and t he phot ogr aphs of t he dr i veway,
est abl i shed t hat t he dr i veway was nar r ow. Sgt . Fi t zger al d
t est i f i ed t hat t he space bet ween t he f ence and t he dr i ver si de of
t he car was under 18 i nches. The government al so poi nt s out t hat
t he of f i cer s s uspect ed t hat Car r i gan was ar med and t hat , i f
cor ner ed, he coul d r eact vi ol ent l y. Gi ven t he conf i ned space i n
whi ch t he pol i ce encount er ed Car r i gan, t he f act t hat t he car was
st i l l r unni ng and i n dr i ve, and t he f act t hat t he pol i ce of f i cer s
r easonabl y suspect ed t hat Car r i gan was ar med, we must concl ude t hat
-16-
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 17/24
t he of f i cer s act ed r easonabl y i n maki ng sur e Car r i gan was s ei zed
and handcuf f ed as par t of t he i nvest i gat or y st op. Ther ef or e, t he
f or cef ul sei zur e of Car r i gan and t he use of handcuf f s i n t hi s
par t i cul ar case di d not t ur n t he l awf ul Ter r y st op i nt o a de f act o
ar r est because t he of f i cer s had a r easonabl e bel i ef t hat such
measur es were necessary t o pr ot ect t hei r own saf et y. We now t ur n
t o Car r i gan' s chal l enge t o hi s sent ence.
C. Sentencing under the ACCA
1. Applicable Law
Whet her a def endant qual i f i es as an ACC i s a quest i on of
l aw t hat we r evi ew de novo. Uni t ed St at es v. Mast er a, 435 F. 3d 56,
59 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . Accor di ngl y, we r evi ew de novo t he l egal
quest i on of whet her a pr i or convi ct i on qual i f i es as a "vi ol ent
f el ony. " Uni t ed St at es v. Sánchez- Ramí r ez, 570 F. 3d 75, 81 ( 1st
Ci r . 2009) .
Car r i gan pl ed gui l t y t o bei ng a f el on i n possessi on of
an i l l egal f i r ear m. See 18 U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 1) . The ACCA
pr escr i bes a 15- year mandat or y mi ni mums ent ence f or an of f ender who
has t hr ee pr i or convi ct i ons " f or a vi ol ent f el ony or a ser i ous dr ug
of f ense" when t he unl awf ul possessi on of a f i r ear m occur r ed. I d.
§ 924( e) ( 1) . "Vi ol ent f el ony" i s def i ned as:
any cr i me puni shabl e f or a t er m exceedi ng oneyear . . . i nvol vi ng t he use or car r yi ng of af i r ear m, kni f e, or dest r uct i ve devi ce . . .t hat : ( i ) has as an el ement t he use, at t empt eduse, or t hr eat ened use of physi cal f or ceagai nst t he per son of anot her [ t he f or ce
-17-
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 18/24
cl ause] ; or ( i i ) i s bur gl ar y, ar son, orext or t i on, i nvol ves use of expl osi ves, orot her wi se i nvol ves conduct t hat pr esent s aser i ous pot ent i al r i sk of physi cal i nj ur y t oanot her [ t he r esi dual cl ause] .
I d. at 924( e) ( 2) ( B) .
I n det er mi ni ng whet her a pr i or convi ct i on const i t ut es a
vi ol ent f el ony under t he ACCA, cour t s empl oy a cat egor i cal
appr oach. Uni t ed St at es v. Ri char ds, 456 F. 3d 260, 262- 63 ( 1st
Ci r . 2006) . We t hus det er mi ne i f t he st at ut or y def i ni t i on of t he
pr i or of f ense f i t s t he ACCA' s def i ni t i ons of "vi ol ent f el ony" under
ei t her cl ause. I n per f or mi ng t hi s cat egor i cal i nqui r y, cour t s
" t ypi cal l y mus t l i mi t [ t hei r ] i nqui r y t o ' t he f act of convi ct i on
and t he st at ut or y def i ni t i on of t he pr i or of f ense. ' " Uni t ed St at es
v. Moor e, 286 F. 3d 47, 49 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( quot i ng Tayl or v. Uni t ed
St at es, 495 U. S. 575, 602 ( 1990) ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.
Hol l oway, 630 F. 3d 252, 256 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( " Thi s appr oach i s
deemed cat egor i cal because we may consi der onl y t he of f ense' s l egal
def i ni t i on, f or goi ng any i nqui r y i nt o how t he def endant may have
commi t t ed t he of f ense. ") . I f a pr i or convi ct i on under st at e l aw i s
at i ssue, "[ s] t at e cour t const r uct i on of t he r el evant st at e l aw
di ct at es our r esul t . " Uni t ed St at es v. Har t , 674 F. 3d 33, 41 ( 1st
Ci r . 2012) .
Det er mi ni ng whet her a pr i or convi ct i on f al l s wi t hi n t he
scope of t he r esi dual cl ause i s somewhat mor e di f f i cul t when t he
pr i or convi ct i on r el at es t o a cr i me pr oscr i bed by a st at ut e t hat
-18-
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 19/24
cover s mul t i pl e of f enses. Hol l oway, 630 F. 3d at 256- 57. I f t hat
i s t he case, a set of r ul es di ct at es when t he convi ct i on may be
consi der ed f or pur poses of t he ACCA and when i t may not . A cour t
must f i r st det er mi ne whi ch of f ense or of f enses ser ved as t he
of f ense or of f enses of convi ct i on by l ooki ng at " a r est r i ct ed set
of document s ( e. g. , i ndi ct ment , pl ea col l oquy, j ur y i nst r uct i ons) . "
I d. at 257 ( quot i ng Shepar d v. Uni t ed St at es, 544 U. S. 13, 26
( 2005) ) . When t he document s do not i dent i f y whi ch of t he of f enses
pr oscr i bed was t he of f ense of convi ct i on, t he convi ct i on may be
used f or pur poses of t he ACCA onl y when al l of t he of f enses
pr oscri bed i n t he par t i cul ar st at ut e qual i f y as vi ol ent f el oni es
under t he ACCA. I d. I f t hat i s not t he case, t he convi ct i on may
not be used as an ACCA pr edi cat e. I d.
2. Carrigan's prior convictions
Car r i gan' s pr i or convi ct i ons, al l under Massachuset t s
l aw, i ncl ude: ( 1) a Mar ch 1996 convi ct i on f or ar med r obber y; ( 2) an
Oct ober 2000 convi ct i on f or r esi st i ng ar r est ; ( 3) a December 2000
convi ct i on f or assaul t wi t h a dangerous weapon; and ( 4) t wo May
2006 convi ct i ons f or assaul t and bat t er y on a pol i ce of f i cer and
assaul t and bat t ery wi t h a dangerous weapon. Car r i gan concedes hi s
1996 convi ct i on f or ar med r obber y i s a vi ol ent f el ony f or pur poses
of t he ACCA. He ar gues, however , t hat hi s ot her convi ct i ons cannot
be consi der ed " vi ol ent f el oni es" under t he ACCA i n hi s case because
i n 2008, when t he ar r est i n t hi s case t ook pl ace, no cour t had yet
-19-
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 20/24
f ound t hose speci f i c of f enses t o be ACCA pr edi cat es. He t hus
ar gues t hat count i ng t hese convi ct i ons agai nst hi mvi ol at ed hi s due
pr ocess r i ght s. I n suppor t of t hi s ar gument , he ci t es Uni t ed
St at es v. Lani er , 520 U. S. 259 ( 1997) , where t he Supr eme Cour t
expl ai ned t he f ai r war ni ng r equi r ement . He t hus r equest s t hat t he
we appl y i n hi s case " t he canon of st r i ct const r uct i on of cr i mi nal
st at ut es, or r ul e of l eni t y, [ whi ch] ensur es f ai r war ni ng by so
r esol vi ng ambi gui t y i n a cr i mi nal st at ut e as t o appl y i t onl y t o
conduct cl ear l y cover ed. " I d. at 266.
Cont r ar y t o what Car r i gan ar gues, Lani er st ands f or t he
pr oposi t i on t hat t he due pr ocess cl ause bar s t he appl i cat i on of a
novel const r uct i on of a st at ut e wher e t he scope of t he st at ut e i s
ambi guous. See i d. at 267 ( " [ T] he t ouchst one [ of t he due pr ocess
i nqui r y] i s whet her t he st at ut e, ei t her st andi ng al one or as
const r ued, made i t r easonabl y cl ear at t he r el evant t i me t hat t he
def endant ' s conduct was cr i mi nal . " ) . Lani er does not appl y wher e
t he scope of a st at ut e i s ascer t ai nabl e f r om t he pl ai n meani ng of
i t s wor ds. As expl ai ned above, t he scope of appl i cat i on of t he
ACCA i s f ai r l y cl ear bot h under t he f or ce cl ause and t he r esi dual
cl ause as t o t he t ype of of f enses cover ed. The f act t hat at t he
t i me Car r i gan commi t t ed t he i nst ant of f ense no cour t had f ound t hat
t he speci f i c convi ct i ons Car r i gan has under hi s bel t wer e ACCA
predi cat es does not mean t hat t he ACCA was ambi guous at t hat t i me
-20-
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 21/24
and t hat t he appl i cat i on of t he r ul e of l eni t y i s war r ant ed. We
t hus f i nd Car r i gan' s ar gument under Lani er unavai l i ng.
As di scussed bel ow, t wo of t he convi ct i ons i n quest i on
ar e ACCA pr edi cat es whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y consi der ed
i n sent enci ng hi m as an ACC. 2 Those t wo convi ct i ons, pl us
Car r i gan' s convi ct i on f or ar med r obber y, whi ch he concedes i s an
ACCA pr edi cat e, pr oper l y const i t ut e t hr ee pr i or convi ct i ons f or
vi ol ent f el oni es. We t ake each ar gument i n t ur n.
We f i r st t ackl e Car r i gan' s ar gument t hat hi s 1998
convi ct i on f or r esi st i ng ar r est cannot be consi der ed a vi ol ent
f el ony under t he ACCA. He ar gues t hat t he cr i me of r esi st i ng
ar r est may be commi t t ed r eckl ess l y, but does not f ur t her devel op
t hi s i ssue. I n Uni t ed St at es v. Weeks, we sai d t hat " r esi st i ng
ar r est [ under Massachuset t s l aw] qual i f i e[ s] as a ' cr i me of
vi ol ence' under U. S. S. G. § 4B1. 2 [ t he car eer of f ender gui del i ne] ,
and because t hat Gui del i ne and t he ACCA are si mi l ar l y worded, " a
cour t may t r eat a convi ct i on f or r esi st i ng ar r est as a vi ol ent
f el ony f or pur poses of t he ACCA. 611 F. 3d 68, 73 ( 1st Ci r . 2010)
2 Car r i gan al so argues t hat hi s December 2000 assaul t wi t h adanger ous weapon convi ct i on shoul d not count under t he ACCA si ncet he Bost on Muni ci pal Cour t had det er mi ned hi s gui l t y pl ea t o be t her esul t of i nef f ect i ve counsel . The same muni ci pal cour t al sor ej ect ed Car r i gan' s r equest t o have hi s pl ea set asi de becauseCar r i gan had not been pr ej udi ced as he woul d be ser vi ng t i me f ort he convi ct i on concur r ent l y wi t h anot her of f ense. We need notdet er mi ne i f t hi s convi ct i on woul d qual i f y Car r i gan as an ACCbecause we f i nd t hat hi s t hr ee ot her vi ol ent f el ony convi ct i onssuf f i ce t he st at ut or y r equi r ement s.
-21-
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 22/24
( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Al menas, 553 F. 3d 27, 34 n. 7 ( 1st Ci r .
2009) ( " [ F] or bot h pr udent i al and pr ecedent i al r easons, we have
r ead [ t he ACCA] and t he al most par al l el gui del i ne l anguage at i ssue
[ i n t he gui del i nes def i ni t i on of cri me of vi ol ence] as bei ng i n
par i passu. " ) ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Har t , 674 F. 3d at 41 n. 5
( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( "The Sent enci ng Gui del i nes' t er m ' cr i me of
vi ol ence' and ACCA' s t er m ' vi ol ent f el ony' ar e def i ned al most
i dent i cal l y. Accor di ngl y, deci si ons const r ui ng one t er mi nf or mt he
const r uct i on of t he ot her . " ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons and quot at i on
marks omi t t ed) ) .
Fur t her mor e, cont r ar y t o what Car r i gan ar gues, t he t wo
met hods of r esi st i ng ar r est pr oscr i bed by Massachuset t s l aw r equi r e
knowl edge. See Mass . Gen Laws ch. 268, § 32B( a) . 3 Bot h met hods
f al l under ei t her t he f or ce cl ause, see i d. § 32B( a) ( 1) , or t he
r esi dual cl ause, see i d. § 32B( a) ( 2) . Al menas, 553 F. 3d at 33, 35.
3 I n per t i nent par t , Mass. Gen Laws ch. 268, § 32B( a) s t at es:
A per son commi t s t he cr i me of r esi st i ng ar r esti f he knowi ngl y pr event s or at t empt s t opr event a pol i ce of f i cer , act i ng under col orof hi s of f i ci al aut hor i t y, f rom ef f ect i ng anar r est of t he act or or anot her , by:
( 1) usi ng or t hr eat eni ng t o use physi calf or ce or vi ol ence agai nst t he pol i ce of f i ceror anot her ; or( 2) usi ng any ot her means whi ch cr eat es asubst ant i al r i sk of causi ng bodi l y i nj ur y t osuch pol i ce of f i cer or anot her .
( emphasi s suppl i ed) .
-22-
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 23/24
Ther ef or e, we concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t act ed cor r ect l y i n
f i ndi ng t hat Car r i gan' s convi ct i on f or r esi st i ng ar r est coul d be
consi der ed, al ong wi t h hi s convi ct i on f or ar med r obber y, as a cr i me
of vi ol ence f or pur poses of sent enci ng under t he ACCA.
We must now det er mi ne whet her Car r i gan' s convi ct i on f or
assaul t and bat t ery wi t h a deadl y weapon and assaul t and bat t ery of
a pol i ce of f i cer al so count as vi ol ent f el oni es f or pur poses of t he
ACCA.
I n Har t , we hel d t hat assaul t and bat t er y wi t h a deadl y
weapon under Massachuset t s l aw cat egor i cal l y qual i f i es as an ACCA
pr edi cat e under t he ACCA' s r esi dual cl ause. 674 F. 3d at 41- 44. We
r easoned t hat t he of f ense i n quest i on " cl ear l y poses a ser i ous
pot ent i al r i sk of i nj ur y, compar abl e t o t he degr ee of r i sk posed by
t he enumer at ed of f enses [ of t he r esi dual cl ause] . " I d. at 42. I n
Har t , we al so f ound t hat even i f a convi ct i on f or assaul t and
bat t er y wi t h a danger ous weapon under Massachuset t s l aw may
somet i mes r est on a r eckl essness t heor y, " our anal ysi s under t he
r esi dual c l ause i s expl i c i t l y, and necessar i l y, l i mi t ed t o t he
' or di nar y case. ' " I d. at 43 ( ci t i ng J ames v. Uni t ed St at es, 550
U. S. 192, 208 ( 2007) ) ; see al so i d. at 43 n. 7 ( expl ai ni ng t hat
"[ r ] egar dl ess of t he under l yi ng t heor y, [ assaul t and bat t er y wi t h
a deadl y weapon] r equi r es ' gener al i nt ent t o do t he act causi ng
i nj ur y. ' " ( quot i ng Commonweal t h v. Appl eby, 380 Mass. 296, 308
( 1979) ) ) . Pr i or t o i ssui ng Har t , we had r ul ed t hat assaul t and
-23-
7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 24/24
bat t ery wi t h a deadl y weapon under Massachuset t s l aw i s a vi ol ent
f el ony under t he car eer of f ender gui del i nes. See Uni t ed St at es v.
Gl over , 558 F. 3d 71, 79- 82 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .
Fi nal l y, Car r i gan ar gues t hat t he ACCA' s r esi dual cl ause
i s unconst i t ut i onal l y vague. He acknowl edges, however , t hat hi s
ar gument s may be f or ecl osed by t hi s ci r cui t ' s r ul i ngs i n Weeks,
Har t and Uni t ed St at es v. Dancy, 640 F. 3d 455 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . He
does not of f er any new aut hor i t y and he has not r ef ormul at ed t he
vagueness ar gument i n any way t hat woul d pr ompt us t o r evi si t our
pr evi ous r ul i ngs. 4
III. Conclusion
For t he r easons set f or t h above, we af f i r m Car r i gan' s
sent ence.
Affirmed.
4 Car r i gan f i l ed a Fed. R. App. P. 28( j ) l et t er aski ng t hi s cour tt o f i nd t hat hi s sent ence i s unconst i t ut i onal because t he quest i onof hi s s t at us as an ACC shoul d have been submi t t ed t o t he j ur ypur suant t o Uni t ed St at es v. Al l eyne, U. S. , 133 S. Ct . 2151( 2013) . We di sagr ee. I n Al l eyne, t he Supr eme Cour t st at ed t hatAl mendar ez- Tor r es v. Uni t ed St at es, 523 U. S. 224 ( 1998) , r emai nsgood l aw. See Al l eyne, *10 n. 1. I n Al mendar ez- Tor r es, t he Supr emeCour t f ound t hat , wher e "t he r el evant st at ut or y subj ect mat t er i sr eci di vi sm[ , ] " whi ch "i s as t ypi cal a sent enci ng f act or as onemi ght i magi ne[ , ] " a cr i me i s not bei ng def i ned and, t her ef or e, t hef act of t he pr i or convi ct i on need not be ment i oned i n t hei ndi ct ment nor submi t t ed t o t he j ur y. I d. at 230. Ther ef or e, t hesent ence i mposed on Car r i gan pur suant t o t he ACCA was based on adet er mi nat i on of a sent enci ng f act or , not a det er mi nat i on of anel ement of an of f ense.
-24-