United States v. Octavious Stovall

921 F.3d 758
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedApril 18, 2019
Docket18-2298
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 921 F.3d 758 (United States v. Octavious Stovall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Octavious Stovall, 921 F.3d 758 (8th Cir. 2019).

Opinion

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Octavious T. Stovall pled guilty to distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). The district court 1 sentenced him as a career offender to 120 months' imprisonment. He appeals the career offender determination under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , this court affirms.

The Sentencing Guidelines enhance a defendant's base level if the defendant has "at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense." U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) . Stovall concedes he has one conviction for a controlled substance offense. However, he maintains his Arkansas convictions for aggravated assault and robbery are not crimes of violence. This court reviews the issue de novo. See United States v. McMillan , 863 F.3d 1053 , 1055 (8th Cir. 2017).

Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a "crime of violence" is any offense "under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that ... has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another," or is one of a list of enumerated offenses (including robbery). U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) . 2 Determining whether Arkansas robbery is a crime of violence, this court focuses on the elements of the crime, considering whether "the state statute defining the crime of conviction categorically fits within the generic federal definition of a corresponding crime of violence." United States v. Kosmes , 792 F.3d 973 , 975 (8th Cir. 2015). The " 'generic' federal definition of a crime of violence ... mean[s] the sense in which the term is now used in the criminal codes of most States." Id. at 976 (internal quotation marks omitted). See Taylor v. United States , 495 U.S. 575 , 598, 110 S.Ct. 2143 , 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990) (considering the "generic, contemporary meaning" of a crime).

"To determine whether a crime falls within the enumerated-offenses clause," this court begins "by identifying the elements of the generic enumerated offense." United States v. Schneider , 905 F.3d 1088 , 1093 (8th Cir. 2018). "[T]he enumerated-offenses clause and its accompanying commentary do not define most of the generic offenses." Id. But, "[t]he Supreme Court has explained that how 'the criminal codes of most States' define an offense provides strong evidence of its generic meaning." Id. quoting Taylor , 495 U.S. at 598 , 110 S.Ct. 2143 . In United States v. House , 825 F.3d 381 (8th Cir. 2016), this court defined "generic robbery" as "aggravated larceny, or the misappropriation of property under circumstances involving immediate danger to a person." House , 825 F.3d at 387 . See United States v. Lockley , 632 F.3d 1238 , 1243 (11th Cir. 2011) ("[T]he generic form of robbery may be thought of as aggravated larceny, containing at least the elements of misappropriation of property under circumstances involving [immediate] danger to the person.") (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Santiesteban-Hernandez , 469 F.3d 376 , 380 (5th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Rodriguez , 711 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 2013) ("Although the precise state definitions vary, the generic form of robbery 'may be thought of as aggravated larceny,' containing at least the elements of 'misappropriation of property under circumstances involving [immediate] danger to the person.' "), quoting W. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 20.3(e) intro., (d)(2) (2d ed. 2003).

At the time of Stovall's conviction, Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-12-102 said:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Edrick Ellis
127 F.4th 1122 (Eighth Circuit, 2025)
United States v. Remberto Rivera
76 F.4th 1085 (Eighth Circuit, 2023)
United States v. LaSamuel Richardson, III
40 F.4th 858 (Eighth Circuit, 2022)
United States v. Christopher Martin
15 F.4th 878 (Eighth Circuit, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
921 F.3d 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-octavious-stovall-ca8-2019.