Whyte v. Lynch , 815 F.3d 92 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                 United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    _____________________
    No. 14-2357
    ANTHONY MCKAY WHYTE,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    LORETTA E. LYNCH,
    Attorney General of the United States,
    Respondent.
    __________________
    Before
    Torruella, Lynch, and Kayatta,
    Circuit Judges.
    __________________
    ORDER OF COURT
    Entered: March 21, 2016
    The petition for rehearing is denied. In Chrzanoski v. Ashcroft, 
    327 F.3d 188
     (2d Cir.
    2003), the Second Circuit held that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a–61(a)(1) is not categorically a crime of
    violence as defined in 
    18 U.S.C. § 16
    (a). It reasoned that a person may cause physical injury under
    the Connecticut statute by "guile, deception or deliberate omission," Chrzanoski, 
    327 F.3d at 195
    ,
    without himself using "physical force" to cause the injury, 
    18 U.S.C. § 16
    (a). Petitioner then relied
    on Chrzanoski and this argument in his opening brief, Brief for Petitioner at 8, 13–16, while the
    government countered by arguing that the Second Circuit "incorrectly assumed that an individual
    could be convicted under section 53a–61(a)(1) for injury caused by 'guile, deception, or even
    deliberate omission,'" Brief for Respondent at 26 (quoting Chrzanoski, 
    327 F.3d at 195
    ). The
    Court ultimately adopted Petitioner's reasoning in its opinion.
    Now, for the first time, the government argues in its petition for rehearing that causing
    injury not only involves "physical force" in some abstract sense, but also involves the "use of
    physical force" by the defendant himself even if the defendant's misconduct was limited to guile,
    deception, or deliberate omission. Rather than distinguishing the Supreme Court's majority
    opinion in United States v. Castleman, 
    134 S. Ct. 1405
     (2014), as it did in its brief on appeal, see
    Brief for Respondent at 22–23, the government now points to Castleman as supporting this
    argument.
    Because this argument was not properly developed by the government in its brief on appeal,
    the Court never considered it. For purposes of this case only, it was waived. Trull v. Volkswagen
    of Am., Inc., 
    187 F.3d 88
    , 104 (1st Cir. 1999) (new arguments raised for the first time in a petition
    for rehearing are waived).
    By the Court:
    /s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk
    cc:
    Virginia Benzan
    Sejal Zota
    Bryan Stuart Beier
    LaTia N. Bing
    Anthony Wray Norwood
    Lisa Morinelli
    Ragini Shah
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-2357O

Citation Numbers: 815 F.3d 92

Filed Date: 3/23/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023