US v. Lionel Well

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:10-cr-00948-RBH-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998880923]. [11-4478]

Appeal: 11-4478

Doc: 27

Filed: 06/22/2012

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4478

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LIONEL RICHARD WELLS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:10-cr-00948-RBH-1)

Submitted:

June 8, 2012

Decided:

June 22, 2012

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles,
United States Attorney, Alfred W. Bethea, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4478

Doc: 27

Filed: 06/22/2012

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Lionel Richard Wells pled guilty to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon.
Wells’

base

offense

level

The district court concluded that
should

be

calculated

under

U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) (2010) based upon
his prior conviction for a “crime of violence,” namely a South
Carolina

conviction

for

Assault

Aggravated Nature (“ABHAN”). *

and

Battery

of

a

High

and

The court imposed a thirty-seven

month sentence, and Wells appeals, contending that his prior
conviction

was

explained

below,

not

categorically

we

vacate

Wells’

a

crime

of

sentence

violence.

and

remand

As
for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
A

defendant

convicted

of

unlawful

possession

of

a

firearm is given a base offense level of 20 if he committed the
crime “subsequent to sustaining one felony conviction of either
a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.”
§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(A).

A

“crime

of

violence”

is

defined

USSG
by

the

Guidelines as an offense that is punishable by imprisonment for
more than one year and (1) “has as an element the use, attempted
use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of

*

Wells was actually convicted of both ABHAN and Assault of
a High and Aggravated Nature.
The district court analyzed the
two convictions as one ABHAN conviction.
Neither party
objected.

2

Appeal: 11-4478

Doc: 27

Filed: 06/22/2012

another,”

or

extortion,

involves

conduct
injury

(2)

that
to

“is

burglary

use

presents

another.”

Pg: 3 of 5

of
a

of

a

dwelling,

explosives,

serious

USSG

or

otherwise

potential

§ 4B1.2(a).

arson,

risk

Here,

of

the

or

involves
physical

Government

concedes that an ABHAN conviction does not satisfy subsection
(1)

and

instead

contends

only

that

ABHAN

categorically

“otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential
risk of physical injury to another.”
To
crime

of

decide

whether

violence,

the

categorical approach.
684

(4th

Cir.

a

prior

district

conviction

court

constitutes

generally

must

use

a
a

United States v. Jenkins, 631 F.3d 680,

2011).

This

approach

“look[s]

only

to

the

elements of the offense . . . . [and] examin[es] [the offense]
in terms of how the law defines it and not in terms of how an
individual

offender

occasion.”

Id.

might

have

(internal

committed

quotation

it

marks

on

a

and

particular
alternation

omitted).

“For an offense to constitute a crime of violence

under

approach,

this

the

offense’s

full

range

of

proscribed

conduct, including the least culpable proscribed conduct, must
fall within the applicable Guidelines definition of that term.”
United

States

v.

King,

673

F.3d

274,

278

(4th

Cir.

2012)

(internal quotation marks omitted).
However,

in

a

“narrow

range

of

cases”

where

the

offense defined by the relevant law includes conduct such that
3

Appeal: 11-4478

Doc: 27

Filed: 06/22/2012

Pg: 4 of 5

some commissions of the offense constitute crimes of violence
and others do not, the court is to “look beyond the generic
elements of the offense to the specific conduct underlying that
prior offense.”

Id.

This approach is known as the modified

categorical approach.

Id.

In applying the modified categorical

approach, the court is limited to considering “the record of
conviction,
agreement,

which
and

includes

the

the

transcript

charging

of

the

document,

plea

the

colloquy,

explicit factual findings made by the trial court.”

plea

and

any

Id.

Employing the categorical approach, the district court
concluded

that

Wells’

conviction

violence under USSG § 4B1.1(a).

for

ABHAN

was

a

crime

of

Without expressing an opinion

on whether a conviction for ABHAN so qualifies, we vacate Wells’
sentence and remand this case to the district court for further
proceedings to allow that court to determine if the modified
categorical

approach

supports

the

conclusion

that

Wells’

conviction for ABHAN constitutes a crime of violence under USSG
§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(A).

See Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211,

218 (1974) (“We think it inadvisable . . . to reach out . . . to
pass

on

important

questions

of

statutory

construction

when

simpler, and more settled, grounds are available for deciding
the case at hand.”).
facts

and

legal

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

4

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 11-4478

Doc: 27

materials

before

Filed: 06/22/2012

the

court

Pg: 5 of 5

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

5