United States v. Jesus Valle, No. 10-1673 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - sentence. Defendant's California conviction for burglary in the second degree of an elevator control room is a crime of violence under the "otherwise" clause of Guidelines sec. 4B1.2 under this court's decision in United States v. Stymiest and that decision cannot be overruled by a panel.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-1673 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Jesus Valle, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: March 14, 2011 Filed: April 7, 2011 ___________ Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Jesus Valle appeals from his conviction for being a felon in possession of ammunition, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His sole contention on appeal is that the district court1 erred in holding that his California conviction for burglary in the second degree was for a crime of violence within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 and enhancing his sentence on that basis. As relevant here, the guideline defines a crime of violence as an offense that "is burglary of a dwelling ... or otherwise involves 1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another." U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). Mr. Valle maintains that because he burgled an elevator control room, not a dwelling, his offense did not qualify for the sentencing enhancement, and he cites Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008), in support of his argument. But we held in United States v. Stymiest, 581 F.3d 759 (8th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2364 (2010), that this very argument was unavailing. We explained that we had consistently held that any generic burglary (the unauthorized entry of a structure for the purpose of committing a crime) involved serious potential risk of harm to another and therefore satisfied the "otherwise" clause of the guideline, and that Begay had not overruled those precedents. Id. at 767-69; see U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(a)(2). Mr. Valle maintains that Stymiest and related cases are in error and should be overruled. But a panel of our court is not free to overrule a case decided by another panel; only the en banc court can do that. See United States v. Riza, 267 F.3d 757, 760 (8th Cir. 2001). So we are obliged to reject Mr. Valle's argument. Affirmed. ______________________________ -2-
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.
