The Seventh Circuit considered the meaning of the term “arson” for the purposes of whether a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) constituted a crime of violence for the defendant to be sentenced as a career offender. Defendant argued that maliciously destroying a building or vehicle by fire or explosive under section 844(i) did not constitute “arson” because it did not require proof that a defendant who burned his own property did so to collect insurance. The Seventh Circuit, after reviewing current statutes and historical case law, was not persuaded by defendant’s argument and affirmed, explaining that a conviction under § 844(i) is one for “arson” as that term appears in the career-offender sentencing guideline. (SYKES and PRYOR, concurring)
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court
Sentencing