United States of America v. Juan V. Angiano

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
No. 09-3592
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JUAN V. ANGIANO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
No. 09 CR 63—Charles N. Clevert, Jr., Chief Judge.
ARGUED APRIL 1, 2010—DECIDED APRIL 19, 2010
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and BAUER and
HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
BAUER, Circuit Judge. At issue in this appeal is whether
the district court correctly concluded that burglary of a
dwelling is a crime of violence, warranting a sentencing
enhancement. Reviewing this question of law de novo,
we affirm.
DISCUSSION
Juan Angiano pleaded guilty to one count of illegal re-
entry after being convicted of an aggravated felony,

-- 1 of 3 --

2 No. 09-3592
in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and 1326(b)(2). Angiano
admitted that he was previously convicted of burglary
of a dwelling, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 943.10(1m)(a).
The statute under which Angiano was sentenced states:
“If the defendant previously was deported, or unlaw-
fully remained in the United States, after . . . a convic-
tion for a felony that is . . . a crime of violence . . . in-
crease by 16 levels.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2009). A “crime of violence” includes
any of the following offenses under federal, state, or
local law:
[M]urder, manslaughter, kidnapping, aggravated
assault, forcible sex offenses . . . statutory rape, sexual
abuse of a minor, robbery, arson, extortion, extortion-
ate extension of credit, burglary of a dwelling, or any
other offense under federal, state, or local law that
has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened
use of physical force against the person of another.
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2 n.1(B)(iii)
(2009) (emphasis added).
The Guidelines Manual makes clear that enumerated
offenses, such as burglary of a dwelling “are always
classified as ‘crimes of violence,’ regardless of whether
the prior offense expressly has as an element the use,
attempted use, or threatened use of physical force
against the person of another.” U.S. Sentencing Guide-
lines Manual, Supplement to Appendix C, Amendment
722 (effective date Nov. 1, 2008). The district judge
applied the sixteen-level enhancement and sentenced
Angiano to imprisonment for seventy-seven months.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 09-3592 3
On appeal, Angiano would like us to skip over the
enumerated offenses in the definition above and ana-
lyze the particulars of his offense to see if it “has as an
element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of
physical force against the person of another.” Angiano
cites Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008), and Cham-
bers v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 687 (2009), arguing that
these Supreme Court cases looked at the residual clause
of the Armed Career Criminal Act’s (“ACCA”) definition
of “violent felony” to determine whether an enhance-
ment was warranted. However, these cases are inappo-
site; both Begay and Chambers only classified the prior
convictions under the residual clause of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2006) because the prior offenses were
not specifically enumerated as “violent felon[ies]”
under that clause. Here, Angiano’s prior offense is spe-
cifically enumerated as a crime of violence under
§ 2L1.2 n.1(B)(iii); there is no need to look at the
residual clause.
CONCLUSION
Because burglary of a dwelling is specifically enu-
merated as a crime of violence under § 2L1.2 n.1(B)(iii),
the sixteen-level enhancement was warranted.
AFFIRMED.
4-19-10

-- 3 of 3 --