United States v. Keast

No. 24-1253 (9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · September 10, 2025 · No. 24-1253

Summary

The Ninth Circuit vacated Scott Keast’s 46-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and remanded for resentencing. The court held that Keast’s aggravated Oregon conviction for unlawful use of a weapon with a firearm does not qualify as a crime of violence under the elements clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1), because the offense does not require the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person. As a result, the district court had improperly calculated Keast’s base offense level and Guidelines range.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Jennifer Sung; Carlos T. Bea; Lucy H. Koh
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decision date
September 10, 2025
Docket number
24-1253
Procedural posture
Keast pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and appealed his 46-month sentence, challenging the district court's determination that a prior Oregon conviction qualified as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines.
Standard of review
De novo review applies to whether a prior offense constitutes a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines.
Precedential value
published and precedential
Parties
Scott Raymond Keast v. United States of America
Disposition
vacated_and_remanded

Topics

sentencing guidelinesstatutory interpretationstandard of reviewappellate procedurecriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawfederal sentencingappellate practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Keast's prior Oregon conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon based on possession with intent to use a dangerous or deadly weapon unlawfully against another qualifies as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1).
  2. Whether the categorical approach and realistic-probability standard require proof that the firearm was used or threatened against the defendant's intended target or another person.

Holdings

  1. The aggravated Oregon unlawful-use-of-a-weapon possession offense is not categorically a crime of violence because its statutory elements do not require the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.
  2. The aggravated unlawful-use-of-a-weapon offense does not require that the firearm's use or threatened use be directed against the defendant's intended target.
  3. Keast satisfies any realistic-probability requirement because the statutory text itself facially covers conduct outside the Guidelines' crime-of-violence definition; an actual state case applying the statute to nongeneric conduct was unnecessary.

Key quotations

Because the Oregon statutes of conviction do not require “as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another,” Keast’s prior conviction is not a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. (at 3)
Keast’s prior conviction for UUW-possession with a firearm is not categorically a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1) because the statutory elements of UUW-possession with a firearm do not require the government to prove the “use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” (at 22)

Factual background

In 2024, Keast pleaded guilty to one count of felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He had a prior Oregon felony conviction for unlawful use of a weapon under Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.220(1)(a), aggravated under Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.610 for use or threatened use of a firearm. The district court treated the prior conviction as a crime of violence, increasing the base offense level and Guidelines range, and sentenced Keast to 46 months' imprisonment.

Procedural history

The District of Oregon increased Keast's base offense level from 14 to 20 based on its conclusion that his prior aggravated Oregon unlawful-use-of-a-weapon conviction was a crime of violence, producing a Guidelines range of 51–63 months. The court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 46 months. The Ninth Circuit issued a dispositive order vacating the sentence and later issued this opinion explaining its reasoning.

Remand instructions

Vacate Keast's sentence and remand for resentencing using the correct Guidelines calculation, including the lower recommended range of 30–37 months rather than 51–63 months.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…