# United States v. Donte Love

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · February 10, 2010 · 364 F. App'x 955

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9814482

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Donte LOVE, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 10, 2010
- **Citations:** 364 F. App'x 955
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cole
- **Judges:** Ryan, Cole, Clay
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9814482

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that defendant who ran away from police in handcuffs committed the offense of obstruction through a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command

## Opinion text

COLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion. I write separately to make two points.
First, I note that the Michigan statute defines “obstruct” as including “the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command.” Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 750 .81d(7)(a). As the majority notes, we previously held in United States v. Mosley that the “knowing failure to comply with a lawful command” aspect of the offense is not a crime of violence. 575 F.3d 603, 608 (6th Cir.2009). However, we have not determined whether “the use or threatened use of physical interference or *961 force” also does not qualify as a crime of violence.
Second, the majority indicates that Shepard’s analysis is limited to the question of whether a predicate offense falls within the “otherwise” clause of § 4B1.2(a)(2) — the third clause of the Sentencing Guidelines’s definition of “crime of violence.” Shepard is not so limited. The inquiry applies whenever “it is possible to violate a criminal law in a way that amounts to a crime of violence and in a way that does not.” United States v. Ford, 560 F.3d 420, 422 (6th Cir.2009). Indeed, Shepard itself involved a predicate burglary offense, which is referenced in the second clause of the § 4B 1.2(a) definition, indicating the more general applicability of its analysis. Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16 , 125 S.Ct. 1254 , 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9814482. Public record. Not legal advice.