Source: cases/18usc924/f3d-934-1033-us-v-begay.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_934/1033_01/index.html
It follows from our precedent that a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3) requires the intentional use of force.
As such, second-degree murder may be committed recklessly-with a depraved heart mental state-and need not be committed willfully or intentionally.
Second-degree murder does not constitute a crime of violence under the elements clause- 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) -because it can be committed recklessly.
Begay's § 924(c) conviction for discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence therefore cannot stand under either the elements clause or residual clause of § 924(c)(3).
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash3 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f3d/934/1033-01 name United States v. Begay cite 934 F.3d 1033 (2019) court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit date 2019-08-19 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_934/1033_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl sha1=bc3fccace481cc0534a77a273bfa0e6f2ca45952 chars=49387 opinion op : panel by D.W. Nelson @0..21772 controlling opinion dis : dissent by N.R. Smith @21772..49387 ? opinion: the footnotes appended from about @40894 read as the dissent's and are left in the dissent span; no quote is taken from them party p1 : Randly Irvin Begay count c1 : Count Two, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), discharging a firearm during a crime of violence (predicate: second-degree murder, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1153) law 18usc924 (c)(3)(A) role applied posture criminal appeal after jury trial; crime-of-violence question raised for the first time on appeal but reviewed de novo as a pure question of law; murder conviction affirmed, § 924(c) count reversed, remanded for resentencing (divided panel) result claimant-lost element predicate.violence : not-satisfied [law] ? other: UNVERIFIED RECOLLECTION, not in the corpus: this panel ruling is believed to have been vacated and reversed on rehearing en banc (9th Cir. 2022). It is recorded here as what this opinion decided; treat the instance as possibly superseded until the en banc record is in the corpus. party p1 count c1 route elements-clause pattern federal second-degree murder can rest on depraved-heart (extreme) recklessness rule @15195..15316 | It follows from our precedent that a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3) requires the intentional use of force. rule @15808..15954 | As such, second-degree murder may be committed recklessly-with a depraved heart mental state-and need not be committed willfully or intentionally. fact @585..694 [neutral] | On March 4, 2013, Randly Begay, a Native American, shot Roderick Ben in the head with a handgun, killing Ben. held @10303..10456 | Second-degree murder does not constitute a crime of violence under the elements clause- 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) -because it can be committed recklessly. held @20145..20335 | Begay's § 924(c) conviction for discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence therefore cannot stand under either the elements clause or residual clause of § 924(c)(3). gloss Panel majority: a § 924(c)(3)(A) crime of violence requires intentional force; malice aforethought includes depraved-heart recklessness, and "extreme" recklessness is still not intent, so second-degree murder is not categorically a crime of violence. The shooting itself is [neutral]: the court says the categorical approach does not look to it. gloss Judge N.R. Smith dissented from this part (span `dis`): extreme-recklessness murder should qualify. No dissent block is recorded. misfit SUBSEQUENT HISTORY (annotator knowledge, NOT in the pinned text and not in the corpus): this panel opinion was vacated on rehearing en banc, and the en banc Ninth Circuit held the opposite, that second-degree murder under § 1111(a) IS a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A) (United States v. Begay, 33 F.4th 1081 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc)). The block is therefore encoded as superseded and is not an instance; `result claimant-lost` describes this vacated opinion only. The en banc opinion has no IR record here; a curator should verify the citation.