Christopher Martin Jones appeals from his sentence imposed following his conviction for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. On appeal, Jones argues that the district court erroneously found that his 1992 conviction by a special court-martial for sodomy, in violation of United States Military Justice (“UCMJ”) Article 125, 10 U.S.C. § 925, constitutes a sex offense that requires registration under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 42 U.S.C. § 16901 et. seq. (“SORNA”). Accordingly, he argues, the court abused its discretion in ordering that he register as a sex offender under SORNA as a special condition of his supervised release (special condition 5). In addition, Jones also argues that the court abused its discretion in imposing special conditions 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 of his supervised release, which are targeted toward preventing future sexual misconduct. Relying on 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), Jones contends that, in light of the fact that his criminal history includes only one conviction for a sex offense, and this offense occurred in 1992, these special conditions are not reasonably related to the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). For the reasons set forth below, we vacate and remand. A federal grand jury indicted Jones for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Jones ultimately pled guilty to the offense. In preparing the presentence investigation report (“PSI”), the probation officer reported that, in 1992, Jones was convicted by a special court-martial for the military offenses of sodomy and indecent acts. An investigation had revealed that Jones engaged in sexual activity with a 16-year-old girl. At the time that he and the 16-year-old engaged in sexual activity, they were in the presence of a 15-year-old girl. Jones had provided the minor girls with alcohol. Regarding Jones’s conviction for indecent acts, the probation officer reported that military records specified that this conviction was based on the fact that Jones had committed sodomy with a 16-year-old female while in the presence of a 15-year-old female. Here, the district court failed to expressly address the parties’ arguments regarding whether Jones’s sodomy conviction is a military offense that requires SORNA registration. Instead, the court summarily stated that it was “satisfied that [Jones] is required to register as a sex offender,” and did not support this conclusion with factual findings or a legal analysis. As a result, it is impossible to discern the legal and factual basis for the court’s decision to require that Jones register as a sex offender. Moreover, as explained below, the record does not conclusively demonstrate whether the court’s SORNA ruling was correct.

Appellant’s prior crime, the crime of housebreaking, occurs when “[a]ny person subject to [the Uniform Code of Military Justice] . . . unlawfully enters the building or structure of another with intent to commit a criminal offense therein. . . .” 10 U.S.C. § 930. . . . Appellant’s primary argument against this conclusion is that the district court improperly referenced the military court’s discussion of the underlying facts of his conviction. Generally, a court is only to consider “the fact of conviction and the statutory definition of the prior offense.” Taylor, 495 U.S. at 602. But the district court’s reference in this case to the underlying facts of Appellant’s housebreaking conviction, as articulated in the military court’s opinion, does not change the fact that the elements of housebreaking constitute a generic burglary crime, a crime of violence under our precedents. Further, and contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008), did not alter our decisions in regard to generic burglary and does not provide reason for reversal.

See, United States v. Whetzell, No. 09-1463 (8th Cir. February 10, 2010). I have linked to the SCOTUSWiki version of Begay because it has some interesting information about what constitutes a crime of violence for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act.

The act defines “violent felony” to include any adult crime punishable by at least one year’s imprisonment that “is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” This last clause is referred to as the “otherwise” or “residual” clause. The ACCA also defines “serious drug offense” to include offenses under state law “involving manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance . . . for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law.” Begay v. United States asks whether a felony conviction for driving while intoxicated counts as a “violent felony” under the ACCA.

Sorry, for a headnote cite:

Held: New Mexico’s felony DUI crime falls outside the scope of the Act’s clause (ii) “violent felony” definition. Pp. 3–10. (a) Whether a crime is a violent felony is determined by how the law defines it and not how an individual offender might have committed it on a particular occasion. Pp. 3–4. (b) Even assuming that DUI involves conduct that “presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another” under clause (ii), the crime falls outside the clause’s scope because it is simply too unlike clause (ii)’s example crimes to indicate that Congress intended that provision to cover it. Pp. 4–10.