holding that Oregon’s burglary statute falls within the residual clause, even though it does not include all of generic burglary’s elements
How later courts described this case
- holding that Oregon’s burglary statute falls within the residual clause, even though it does not include all of generic burglary’s elements
- holding that first degree burglary under Oregon law is “broader than the definition of generic burglary because the statute does not limit burglary to ‘building[s] or structure[s],’ but also includes non-structures (such as booths, vehicles, boats, and aircraft) that are regularly or intermittently used as lodgings”
- holding that Oregon’s first-degree burglary statute “does not categorically satisfy the generic definition of burglary”
- holding that two tips, including one from a reliable informant, that a defendant lived at a particular residence (at which he also was known to have previously resided) supported probable cause as to residence
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled implicitly by Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013)
Descamps implicitly overruled Snyder and Mayer.
The opinion
Order; Dissent to Order by Chief Judge KOZINKI; Opinion by
N.R. SMITH.
ORDER
The opinion in the above-captioned matter filed on June 30, 2008, and published at 530 F.3d 1099 , is WITHDRAWN. The superseding opinion shall be filed concurrently with this order.
Having made the foregoing amendments to the opinion, all judges on the panel have voted to deny Defendant/Appellee’s Petition for Panel Rehearing, and so that petition is DENIED.
The full court has been advised of Defendant/Appellee’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc, and a judge of this court requested a vote on whether this case should be reheard en banc; however, a majority of the active judges did not vote in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. RApp. P. 35. Accordingly, the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is also DENIED.