United States v. Raquan Scott

── United States v. Raquan Scott ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 25-4048 Doc: 56 Filed: 05/26/2026 Pg: 1 of 26 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-4048 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RAQUAN UNIQUE SCOTT, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:23-cr-00165-HEH-1) Argued: January 30, 2026 Decided: May 22, 2026 Amended: May 26, 2026 Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded for resentencing by published opinion. Judge Heytens wrote the opinion, which Chief Judge Diaz joined. Judge Niemeyer wrote a dissenting opinion. ARGUED: Geremy C. Kamens, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jacqueline Romy Bechara, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Patrick L. Bryant, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Joseph S. Camden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Erik S. Siebert, United States Attorney, Daniel J. Honold, Assistant United States Attorney, Ellen H. Theisen, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4048 Doc: 56 Filed: 05/26/2026 Pg: 2 of 26 TOBY HEYTENS, Circuit Judge: Raquan Scott pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), a.k.a. “the ‘felon‑in‑possession’ offense.” United States v. Canada, 123 F.4th 159, 161 (4th Cir. 2024). In calculating Scott’s advisory sentencing range, the district court concluded he had previously been convicted of a “crime of violence” as defined in Section 4B1.2(a)(1) of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines—thus triggering a higher base offense level than otherwise would have applied. We conclude the district court’s legal analysis was faulty and the government has not carried its burden of showing that error was harmless. We thus vacate and remand for resentencing. I. The Guidelines prescribe a base offense level of 20 if “the defendant committed any part of the instant offense subsequent to sustaining one felony conviction [for] a crime of violence.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). For purposes of that provision, “crime of violence” is defined in two ways. See § 2K2.1 cmt. n.1 (directing courts to use the definition contained in Section 4B1.2(a)). The first definition—which we will call the elements clause—covers “any offense under federal or state law” that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1); accord Delligatti v. United States, 604 U.S. 423, 426 (2025) (using “elements clause” to describe a similarly worded provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act). The second definition—the enumerated offense clause—covers “any offense under federal or state law” that “is murder, voluntary manslaughter, kidnapping, aggravated assault, a forcible sex offense, robbery, arson, extortion, or the use or unlawful possession 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4048 Doc: 56 Filed: 05/26/2026 Pg: 3 of 26 of a