United States v. Singer

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2026 · Evidence

EvidenceSentencingACCACrime of violenceCategorical approachcrime of violenceviolent felonyACCA

Facts

At sentencing, the PSR relied on Singer’s two Oklahoma convictions for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon under § 645, along with a robbery conviction, to increase his Guidelines range and trigger ACCA treatment. Singer objected, arguing that § 645 is broader than the federal definitions because Oklahoma law allows conviction when the victim is an unborn person. The district court rejected the objection, reasoning that Tenth Circuit precedent had treated § 645 as a crime of violence and that the relevant ACCA and Guidelines definitions were materially identical. Singer was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment and appealed.

Issue

Whether Oklahoma assault and battery with a dangerous weapon under Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 645 is categorically a crime of violence under the Guidelines and a violent felony under the ACCA. Specifically, the question was whether Oklahoma law extends § 645 to assaults on unborn persons, which would make the statute broader than the federal definition requiring force against the person of another.

Rule

Under the categorical approach, a court compares the elements of the state offense, not the defendant’s actual conduct, to the federal definition. A state offense is not categorically a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1) or a violent felony under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) if the offense permits conviction based on force against an unborn victim, because the phrase "the person of another" excludes victims not yet born.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In federal court in Denver, Malik Turner pleads guilty to possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. The probation office treats his prior New Mexico conviction under a statute prohibiting aggravated striking of a "person," and New Mexico appellate decisions have interpreted that statute to include viable unborn victims.

If the federal enhancement applies only to offenses requiring force against "the person of another," how should the sentencing court classify the New Mexico conviction?

Explanation. Under the categorical approach, the court compares statutory elements, not the defendant's actual conduct. If state law permits conviction where the victim is unborn, the statute is broader than a federal definition requiring force against "the person of another," which excludes victims not yet born. So the conviction is not categorically a predicate offense. (Derived from United States v. Singer (n.d.).)