USA V. ELISHA POLLOCK, No. 11-10667 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 17 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES, No. 11-10667 Plaintiff - Appellee, D. C. No. 4:10-cr-01786-CKJDTF-1 v. ELISHA WILLIAM POLLOCK, MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 14, 2013 San Francisco, California Before: McKEOWN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and MARBLEY, District Judge.** Defendant appeals the sentence imposed by the district court for his conviction for making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A). The district court applied a six-level enhancement to * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Algenon L. Marbley, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. Defendant s base offense level for Defendant s previous conviction for a felony crime of violence. Defendant argues the district court erred in applying the enhancement because the offense for which he was previously convicted, seconddegree burglary under Arizona law, is not a crime of violence under the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). We review de novo a district court s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Lopez-Patino, 391 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Defendant s argument is stymied by this court s decisions in United States v. Park, 649 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2011), and United States v. Terrell, 593 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2010). In Terrell, we held that second-degree burglary under Arizona law is categorically a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (the ACCA ), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). 593 F.3d at 1093. Furthermore, this Court has interpreted the term crime of violence under the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) in a manner consistent with our interpretation of violent felony under the ACCA. See Park, 649 F.3d at 1177. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the sentence imposed on Defendant by the district court. Defendant also contends the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) is unconstitutionally vague. This Court recently considered and rejected this argument in United States v. Spencer, No. 12-10078, 2013 WL 3870731 (9th Cir. 2 July 29, 2013), where we found this attack to be foreclosed by Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent. Id. at *10 (citing Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267, 2277 (2011); James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192, 210 n. 6 (2007); and United States v. Crews, 621 F.3d 849, 852 n. 4, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2010)). Thus, there is no basis for reversal on this ground. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
