United States v. Chandler, No. 12-10331 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). On appeal, defendant argued that neither his prior Nevada conspiracy conviction nor his Nevada kidnapping conviction was a violent felony under the ACCA. The court concluded that a Nevada conviction for robbery was a violent felony because it created a serious risk of harm that was comparable to the risk posed by burglary. The court also concluded that second degree kidnapping in Nevada categorically involved a serious risk that physical force could be used in the course of committing the offense and that this risk was roughly similar to the risk involved in burglary. Accordingly, the court concluded that both offenses were violent felonies under the ACCA and, therefore, the court affirmed the sentencing enhancement under the ACCA because defendant had previously been convicted of three violent felonies.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the defendant had previously been convicted of three “violent felonies,” which subjected him to an increased penalty under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The panel held that a Nevada conviction for robbery is a violent felony because it creates a serious risk of harm that is comparable to the risk posed by burglary; and that because after United States v. Mendez, 992 F.2d 1488 (9th Cir. 1992), “the § 924(e) analysis of a prior conspiracy conviction is governed by the substantive offense that was the object of the conspiracy,” conspiracy to commit robbery, pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 199.480, 200.380, is also a “violent felony” under the ACCA’s residual clause. The panel also held that second degree kidnapping in Nevada, Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 200.310, 200.330, categorically involves a serious risk that physical force may be used in the course of committing the offense; that this risk is roughly similar to the risk involved in burglary; and that second degree kidnapping under Nevada law is, accordingly, categorically a “violent felony” under the residual clause of the ACCA. Concurring, Judge Bybee, joined by Judges Tashima and District Judge Wood, agreed that Mendez requires the per curiam holding that conspiracy to commit robbery is a “violent felony” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), but wrote separately to question the reasoning and continued validity of Mendez.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on October 9, 2015.
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.