Introduction

In United States v. Lassiter, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed significant questions regarding the interpretation of what constitutes a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Malek Lassiter, the defendant, faced multiple convictions, including two for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a "crime of violence" (VICAR attempted murder). This case marks Lassiter's second appeal, challenging the applicability of his convictions in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Taylor. Additionally, Lassiter contested an inconsistency in the oral and written descriptions of his supervised release conditions, seeking to vacate his entire sentence based on this discrepancy.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Lassiter's § 924(c)(1)(A) convictions, rejecting his argument that the Taylor decision rendered his attempted murder charges non-violent. The court reasoned that, unlike the attempted Hobbs Act robbery in Taylor, attempted murder inherently involves the use or attempted use of force, aligning with the statutory definition of a "crime of violence." However, the court found a significant inconsistency between the district court's oral pronouncement and the written judgment regarding a supervised release condition. Consequently, the court vacated Lassiter's entire sentence and remanded the case for full resentencing to ensure consistency and compliance with prior rulings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key cases that shape the interpretation of "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(1)(A). Notably:

• United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022): Distinguished between attempted Hobbs Act robbery and attempted murder, emphasizing that the former does not inherently involve the use of force.
• United States v. Simmons, 11 F.4th 239 (4th Cir. 2021): Addressed the constructive amendment of indictments and the sufficiency of evidence for convictions.
• United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2020): Established the standard for addressing inconsistencies between oral and written sentencing remarks, mandating full resentencing in such cases.
• United States v. Singletary, 984 F.3d 341 (4th Cir. 2021): Reinforced the necessity of plenary resentencing when Rogers errors occur.
• Alvarado-Linares v. United States, 44 F.4th 1334 (11th Cir. 2022), among others: Supported the categorization of attempted murder as a crime of violence.

These precedents collectively underpin the court's reasoning, particularly in distinguishing between different types of attempted offenses and their alignment with the statutory definition.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously dissected the statutory framework of § 924(c)(1)(A) and § 924(c)(3)(A), which define a "crime of violence" as an offense that "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another." Central to the analysis was whether VICAR attempted murder under Virginia law necessitates the use or threat of force.

Utilizing both the categorical approach and the modified categorical approach, the court determined that attempted murder under Virginia law inherently involves an attempted use of force. This conclusion was drawn by examining the elements of both first- and second-degree murder in Virginia, which unequivocally require the use of physical force.

The court further differentiated this from the Taylor decision, which dealt with attempted Hobbs Act robbery—a statute that does not inherently require the use of force. The court clarified that Taylor does not establish a blanket rule for all attempt offenses but is specific to the nature of Hobbs Act robbery.

Regarding the sentencing inconsistency, the court invoked the Rogers and Singletary precedents, emphasizing that any discrepancy between oral and written sentencing remarks necessitates vacating the entire sentence and remanding for full resentencing to uphold the integrity of judicial proceedings.

Impact

This decision has far-reaching implications for future cases involving § 924(c)(1)(A) convictions. By affirming that VICAR attempted murder constitutes a "crime of violence," the court reinforces the stringent application of firearm-related enhancements in violent crimes. Additionally, the ruling underscores the importance of consistency in sentencing remarks, impacting how courts document and communicate sentencing conditions.

The clarification regarding the application of Taylor ensures that only those attempt offenses that intrinsically involve the use or threat of force are categorized as crimes of violence. This prevents the indiscriminate application of § 924(c)(1)(A) to a broader range of attempt offenses, thereby providing clearer guidance for both prosecutors and defense attorneys.

Complex Concepts Simplified

VICAR Attempted Murder

VICAR stands for "Violent Crime in Aid of Racketeering Activity." In this context, VICAR attempted murder refers to an offense where an individual attempts to commit murder as part of an enterprise engaged in racketeering. The Fourth Circuit clarified that such attempts inherently involve the use or attempt to use physical force, categorizing them as crimes of violence under federal law.

Plain-Error Review and the Mandate Rule

Plain-Error Review is an appellate standard where the court reviews errors that were not raised in the lower court if they are clear or obvious and affect substantial rights. The Mandate Rule prevents issues from being re-litigated if they were previously waived or not raised, ensuring finality in judicial proceedings. In Lassiter's case, these doctrines barred him from challenging his § 924(c)(1)(A) convictions based on the Taylor decision.

Categorical and Modified Categorical Approaches

The categorical approach assesses whether a statute defines an offense as a "crime of violence" based solely on its elements, without considering the specific facts of a case. The modified categorical approach is applied to divisible statutes—those that outline alternative elements for an offense. Here, the court used the modified categorical approach to analyze VICAR attempted murder, determining that its elements necessitate the use or attempted use of force.

Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit's decision in United States v. Lassiter provides a definitive interpretation of what constitutes a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), particularly in the context of VICAR attempted murder. By affirming that attempted murder under Virginia law requires the use or attempt to use force, the court reinforced the statutory criteria for enhanced firearm charges in violent offenses.

Additionally, the ruling highlights the judicial system's commitment to procedural consistency, mandating full resentencing when discrepancies arise between oral and written sentencing remarks. This ensures that defendants receive fair and clearly articulated sentences, upholding the integrity of the legal process.

Overall, this judgment offers clarity and guidance for future cases involving similar statutory interpretations and procedural issues, strengthening the framework within which "crimes of violence" are adjudicated under federal law.