United States v. Kevin Hatch , 94 F. App'x 427 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 03-3049
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   *
    *
    v.                                 * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    Kevin Hatch,                             * District of Nebraska.
    *
    Appellant.                  * [UNPUBLISHED]
    ___________
    Submitted: April 5, 2004
    Filed: April 8, 2004
    ___________
    Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Kevin Hatch pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent
    to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 846
    . The district court1 departed downward to a Category I criminal history
    and sentenced Hatch to the statutory minimum 120 months in prison and 5 years
    supervised release. On appeal Hatch argues the district court should not have
    assessed a criminal history point for a $75 fine he received in Nebraska for possessing
    1
    The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the
    District of Nebraska.
    drug paraphernalia. He argues, as he did below, that this offense was “similar to” the
    excluded offenses listed in U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1), because Nebraska punishes
    possession of drug paraphernalia similarly to or less severely than the excluded
    offenses listed in section 4A1.2(c)(1); and if his drug-paraphernalia offense were not
    counted, he would be eligible for safety-valve relief. Hatch alternatively asks this
    court to apply the rule of lenity and reduce his criminal history category.
    We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of Chapter Four of the
    Sentencing Guidelines, and for clear error the court’s application of Chapter Four to
    the facts. See United States v. Strange, 
    102 F.3d 356
    , 361 (8th Cir. 1996); United
    States v. Jenkins, 
    989 F.2d 979
    , 980 (8th Cir. 1993) (clear-error standard applies to
    determinations regarding similarity of prior offense to excluded offenses listed under
    § 4A1.2(c)). Chapter Four provides that certain misdemeanors and petty offenses--
    including careless or reckless driving, contempt of court, providing false information
    to a police officer, gambling, prostitution, and resisting arrest--as well as offenses
    “similar to them” are not counted in a defendant’s criminal history score unless they
    resulted in at least 1 year probation or 30 days imprisonment, or they are “similar to”
    the instant offense. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1). Although we have recognized that
    possessing drug paraphernalia is not in “the category of excepted offenses listed in
    section 4A1.2(c),” see United States v. Moore, 
    245 F.3d 1023
    , 1025 (8th Cir. 2001)
    (emphasis added), we have yet to consider whether possessing drug paraphernalia is
    “similar to” any of the excluded offenses listed in section 4A1.2(c).
    We interpret the phrase “similar to” as having its dictionary meaning of
    “[n]early corresponding; resembling in many respects; somewhat alike; having a
    general likeness.” See United States v. Mitchell, 
    941 F.2d 690
    , 691 (8th Cir. 1991);
    see also United States v. Webb, 
    218 F.3d 877
    , 880-81 (8th Cir. 2000) (citing Mitchell
    and noting “similar to” as used in § 4A1.2(c) has normal, dictionary meaning;
    parenthetically citing United States v. Harris, 
    128 F.3d 850
    , 854 (4th Cir. 1997), for
    proposition that emphasis on elements of offenses comports with plain meaning of
    -2-
    “similar to” as used in § 4A1.2(c)), cert. denied, 
    531 U.S. 1131
     (2001). Although
    Nebraska may punish possession of drug paraphernalia less severely than it does
    many of the excluded offenses listed in section 4A1.2(c)(1), we do not believe this
    fact alone controls. We conclude the district court did not clearly err in determining
    that possession of drug paraphernalia is not “similar to” the excluded offenses. Cf.
    Jenkins, 
    989 F.2d at 979
     (noting that how Nebraska law views offense does not
    determine how Guidelines view offense); Mitchell, 
    941 F.2d at 691
     (“similar to”
    means “resembling in many respects”); United States v. Martinez-Santos, 
    184 F.3d 196
    , 205 (2d Cir. 1999) (noting that “similar to” inquiry should not be limited to
    comparison of punishments); United States v. Elmore, 
    108 F.3d 23
    , 26-27 (3d Cir.)
    (focusing on elements of offenses and concluding that possession of drug
    paraphernalia was not “similar to” listed disorderly-conduct offense), cert. denied,
    
    522 U.S. 837
     (1997).
    Finally, we note that the district court departed downward to a Category I
    criminal history before it sentenced Hatch, and thus his alternative request is moot.
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    ______________________________
    -3-