Tag Archives: 18 usc 922(g)

Dope Smokers Knew They Were Drug Users (and Dog Bites Man) – Update for September 18, 2019

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

6TH CIRCUIT SAYS KNOWING STATUS IN REHAIF IS ENOUGH

A couple of marijuana aficionados (we’ll call ’em Cheech and Chong), were arrested smoking pot in a car with a couple of guns present. They were convicted of being unlawful drug users in possession of a firearm under 18 USC § 922(g)(3).

cheech190918A little-appreciated portion of § 922(g), the so-call felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute, is that it does not just prohibit convicted felons from possessing a gun. It also prohibits a laundry list of other people from possessing one as well: wife-beaters, people who are nuts, people who have been slapped with a civil protection order, illegal aliens, people on the lam, people who were thrown out of the Army, and dope-smokers. Really. Read the statute.

Cheech and Chong appealed, and while that appeal was pending, the Supreme Court handed down Rehaif v. United States, which held that a § 922(g) conviction requires that a defendant knows that he is in a class of people prohibited from possessing firearms, and that he knowingly possesses the gun. Cheech and Chong raised Rehaif in the Court of Appeals, arguing the government had not shown they knew they were unlawful users of a controlled substance, and even if they did, the government had not shown they knew they shouldn’t have the gun.

On plain error review, the 6th Circuit affirmed the conviction. The record was full of Cheech’s and Chong’s Facebook posts bragging about “smoking dope wit da demons” and “getting high and drunk da whole day.” The Court of Appeals said, “The jury heard that the defendants were arrested with marijuana, posted pictures of themselves using marijuana, commented about using marijuana, and posted a video of them smoking marijuana… The defendants dispute this evidence, but not on the ground that they were unaware the substance was marijuana, or unaware they were ‘unlawfully’ using it.”

marijuanahell190918But Cheech and Chong argued that even if they knowingly used marijuana, Rehaif required that the Government prove each defendant ‘knew he was prohibited from possession [of a firearm] because he was an unlawful user of a controlled substance’.” The Court admitted, “it is at least plausible that they were unaware that they were prohibited from possessing firearms under a subsection of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) due to their regular and repeated drug use,” but held that Rehaif “did not graft onto § 922(g) an ignorance-of-the-law defense by which every defendant could escape conviction if he was unaware of this provision of the United States Code.” The Circuit said Rehaif requires that “the Government must prove . . . that a defendant knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.”

United States v. Bowens, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 27488 (6th Cir. Sept. 12, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

He Might Have Known About the Felon-Gun Thing – Update for September 13, 2019

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

SOME THINGS PROVE THEMSELVES

resipsa190913There’s a doctrine we all had to learn in first-year law school torts class known as “res ipsa loquitur.” That’s Latin (which the law uses a lot because when things are obscure, you can charge clients more when you have to explain them), and translates as “the thing speaks for itself.”

In last June’s Rehaif v. United States decision, the Supreme Court explained the elements that the government has to prove for a felon-in-possession conviction under 18 USC § 922(g)(1), elements which everyone had been getting wrong for years. Samir Benamor was on direct appeal of his felon-in-possession conviction when he raised the Rehaif argument, maintaining that the government had not proven that he knew he was a felon prohibited from possessing firearms.

Because Sammy had not raised the issue in the trial court, the 9th Circuit ruled he had to show plain error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b). I seriously doubt the Circuit was right about applying Rule 52(b), but it did, and it concluded that Sam was out of luck.

There was no doubt that the district court plainly erred by not instructing the jury that it had to find that Sammy knew he was a felon ineligible to possess a firearm. But the “plain error” standard also requires proof that but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. One of Sammy’s priors was for being a felon in possession of a gun. The Court sort of thought that that conviction spoke for itself.

gunb160201The 9th Circuit said, “At a minimum, the prior conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant had the knowledge required by Rehaif and that any error in not instructing the jury to make such a finding did not affect Defendant’s substantial rights or the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial.”

Yeah, you’d think that having been convicted of being a felon in possession of a gun once before would have alerted Sammy that he was a convicted felon prohibited from having a gun. As the law might say, that “res” probably “ipsa loquiturs.”

United States v. Benamor, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 26793 (9th Cir. Sept. 5, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

SCOTUS Rules 922(g) Requires “Knowledge” – Update for June 24, 2019

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

KNOWNOTHING-ISM

In a decision that could be seismic for people convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, the Supreme Court last Friday ruled that it’s not enough to know that thing stuck in your pants is a gun. You have to know that you are part of a group the law says should not possess a gun. And, for that matter, you have to know you possess a firearm or ammo.

carriefgun170807Hamid Rehaif was in the country on a student visa that required him to be enrolled in college. He dropped out of school, but stuck around Florida to soak up the sun and fun. When ICE finally caught up to him, agents found him in possession of a half box of ammunition. Hamid had not really picked up on the “right to remain silent” thing, so he readily admitted going to a gun range. He was prosecuted for being illegally in possession of a firearm and ammo.

Under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), it is unlawful for a convicted felon to possess a firearm or ammunition. But that’s only subsection (g)(1). There are eight other subsections as well, categories that include fugitives, people under indictment, people convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, people who have been found by courts to be mentally incompetent, illegal aliens, stalkers… there’s a long list.

The government has always gotten away with proving that a defendant had a gun or ammo, and that he or she was a felon or something else on the list. The defendant had to know that that thing he had stuffed in his waistband was a gun. Beyond that, there was no knowledge requirement. A defendant who claimed not to know that he or she was in a prohibited class was just plain out of luck. What the defendant knew or did not know simply was irrelevant. That’s what happened to Hamid. He was fine busting a few caps at the gun range as long as he was in school (and thus compliant with the terms of his student visa). But as soon as he dropped out, his visa automatically expired, and his antics at the gun range became illegal. The district court, and the 11th Circuit, agreed (as did every circuit court in America) that Hamid’s awareness that he should limit his firearms training to Nerf weapons.

rangeThat has now changed. The Supreme Court ruled that in a prosecution under 18 USC 922(g) and 924(a)(2) (they go together), the Government must prove both that the defendant knew he or she possessed a firearm and that the defendant knew he or she knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.

Whether a criminal statute requires the government to prove that the defendant acted knowingly, the Court said, is a question of congressional intent. There is a longstanding presumption that Congress intends to require a defendant to possess a culpable mental state regarding “each of the statutory elements that criminalize otherwise innocent conduct.” This is normally characterized as a “presumption in favor of scienter.”

In 922(g) and 924(a)(2), Justice Breyer wrote for the 7-2 decision, the statutory text supports the presumption. It specifies that a defendant commits a crime if he or she “knowingly” violates § 922(g), which makes possession of a firearm unlawful when the following elements are satisfied: (1) a status element; (2) a possession element (to “possess”); (3) a jurisdictional element (“in or affecting commerce”); and (4) a firearm element (a “firearm or ammunition”). Aside from the jurisdictional element, the Court said, § 922(g)’s text “simply lists the elements that make a defendant’s behavior criminal. The term ‘knowingly’ is normally read ‘as applying to all the subsequently listed elements of the crime.’ And the ‘knowingly’ requirement clearly applies to 922(g)’s possession element, which follows the status element in the statutory text. There is no basis for interpreting ‘knowingly’ as applying to the second 922(g) element but not the first.

innocent161024What does this mean for the many felons-in-possession now in the system? It could be Bailey v. United States all over again, as people head back to court on 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petitions (where those are allowed) arguing that under the new statutory interpretation, they are actually innocent.

Justice Alito wrote a detailed and blistering dissent. He warned that the decision’s

practical effects will be far reaching and cannot be ignored. Tens of thousands of prisoners are currently serving sentences for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). It is true that many pleaded guilty, and for most direct review is over. Nevertheless, every one of those prisoners will be able to seek relief by one route or another. Those for whom direct review has not ended will likely be entitled to a new trial. Others may move to have their convictions vacated under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and those within the statute of limitations will be entitled to relief if they can show that they are actually innocent of violating § 922(g), which will be the case if they did not know that they fell into one of the categories of persons to whom the offense applies… This will create a substantial burden on lower courts, who are once again left to clean up the mess the Court leaves in its wake as it moves on to the next statute in need of ‘fixing’.

Watch that space. This could be very interesting.

Rehaif v. United States, Case No. 17-9560 (Supreme Court, June 21, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Supreme Court Rules “Remaining-in” Burglary is Generic Burglary – Update for June 11, 2019

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT ‘REMAINING IN” BURGLARY IS GENERIC BURGLARY UNDER ACCA

Jamar Quarles was convicted of being a felon in possession of a gun under 18 USC § 922(g)(1). Because he had three prior convictions for crimes of violence, he was sentenced to a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years under 18 USC § 924(e), the Armed Career Criminal Act.

burglar160103In order to be a crime of violence, you may recall, 18 USC 924(e) requires that the conviction either be (1) for burglary, arson, use of explosives or extortion (the “enumerated crimes” clause); or (2) a crime involving an actual or threatened use of physical force against another person (the “elements” clause).

Jamar appealed his ACCA conviction, arguing that one of the prior offenses, Michigan third-degree home invasion, was not generic burglary, because its terms were broader than mere generic burglary. Thus, he maintained, the home invasion did not fit the definition of “crime of violence” under the enumerated crimes clause.

Some 29 years ago, the Supreme Court in Taylor v. United States defined generic burglary under §924(e) to mean “unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime.” The Michigan third-degree home invasion statute applied when a person “breaks and enters a dwelling or enters a dwelling without permission and, at any time while he or she is entering, present in, or exiting the dwelling, commits a misdemeanor.”

Jamar argued that this provision was too broad, because it encompassed situations where the defendant forms the intent to commit a crime at any time while unlawfully remaining in a dwelling. He contended that generic remaining-in burglary under the ACCA occurs only when the defendant has the intent to commit a crime at the exact moment when he or she first unlawfully remains in a building or structure.

The District Court rejected that argument, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. Yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts.

remaining190611The Supreme Court said that “remaining in” refers only to the burglary being a continuous event, that begins when one enters the building unlawfully and does not end until he or she exits. The common understanding of “remaining in” as a continuous event, the Court said, “means that burglary occurs for purposes of §924(e) if the defendant forms the intent to commit a crime at any time during the continuous event of unlawfully remaining in a building or structure.” To put it in conventional criminal law terms, the Court explained, “because the actus reus [the act of burglary] is a continuous event, the mens rea [intent to commit a crime while there] matches the actus reus so long as the burglar forms the intent to commit a crime at any time while unlawfully present in the building or structure.”

The Court made it clear what concerns partly drove the train. It observed that “the important point is that all of the state appellate courts that had definitively addressed this issue as of 1986 [the year the ACCA was adopted] had interpreted remaining-in burglary to occur when the defendant forms the intent to commit a crime at any time while unlawfully present in the building or structure… To interpret remaining-in burglary narrowly… would thwart the stated goals of the Armed Career Criminal Act. After all, most burglaries involve unlawful entry, not unlawful remaining in. Yet if we were to narrowly interpret the remaining-in category of generic burglary so as to require that the defendant have the intent to commit a crime at the exact moment he or she first unlawfully remains… many States’ burglary statutes would presumably be eliminated as predicate offenses under §924(e). That result not only would defy common sense, but also would defeat Congress’ stated objective of imposing enhanced punishment on armed career criminals who have three prior convictions for burglary or other violent felonies.”

Quarles v United States, Case No. 17-778 (Supreme Court, June 10, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Sentencing Commission Cannot Add to Drug Offense Definition, 6th Circuit Says – Update for June 10, 2019

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

NEITHER FISH NOR FOWL

fishfowl170803Everyone who paid attention in high school government class knows there are three branches of the federal government, the legislative (Congress), the executive (President and the agencies), and the judicial.

And then there’s the United States Sentencing Commission. It is part of the judicial branch, but it is part legislative, too, answering to Congress (which has the right to pass on any amendments, and veto those of which it disapproves). Legal scholars might say it’s neither fish nor fowl.

In 2017, Jim Harvey pled guilty to felon-in-possession of a firearm. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant convicted of a 18 USC 922(g)(1) offense starts with a base offense level of 14, but that level increases to 20 under USSG § 2K2.1(a)(4) or (6) if he or she has a prior conviction for a “controlled substance offense.” At sentencing, the district court decided that Jim’s 17-year-old Tennessee conviction for selling or delivering cocaine was a “controlled substance offense” under the Guidelines.

Jim objected because the Tennessee statute criminalized both sale and delivery of cocaine. Under state law, “delivery” of drugs includes the “attempted transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance.” Jim argued that the prior conviction was not a controlled substance offense because the Guidelines’ definition of “controlled substance offense” does not include “attempt” crimes.

Jim was right that the Guidelines themselves do not include “attempt” offenses. However, each of the Guidelines comes with its own handy commentary and application notes, helpful annotations by the Sentencing Commission to aid users in what it considers the “proper” way to apply each Guideline. The commentary at the end of USSG § 4B1.2(b), which (among other things) defines a controlled substance offense for Guidelines purposes, directs that the definition of controlled substance offense in the text necessarily includes ‘the offenses of aiding and abetting, conspiring, and attempting to commit such offenses.’

robbank190610Not so, Jim argued. The Guidelines text itself says nothing about attempt, and the Sentencing Commission, he complained, has no power to add attempt crimes to the list of offenses in § 4B1.2(b) through its own commentary. It would be like West Publishing adding a note after the bank robbery statute saying that bank robbery includes the offense of shaking a few quarters out of your kid’s piggy bank for bus fare.

Last Thursday, the 6th Circuit agreed with Jim.

The Guidelines commentary, the Court said, “never passes through the gauntlets of congressional review or notice and comment. That is generally not a problem, the Supreme Court tells us, because such commentary has no independent legal force — it serves only to interpret the Guidelines’ text, not to replace or modify it. Courts need not accept an interpretation that is “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with” the corresponding guideline.

bootstrappingBut the problem comes where the commentary does more than just interpret, but instead tries to bootstrap the Guideline into saying something more than what Congress approved. In this case, the commentary in question does not “interpret,” but rather supplements. The Commission was perfectly capable of adding “attempt” to the Guideline itself. Clearly, the 6th Circuit noted, the “Commission knows how to include attempt crimes when it wants to — in subsection (a) of the same guideline, for example, the Commission defines “crime of violence” as including offenses that have “as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.”

To make attempt crimes a part of 4B1.2(b), the Commission did not interpret a term in the guideline itself, but instead used Application Note 1 to add an offense not listed in the Guideline. Application notes, the Court held, are to be “interpretations of, not additions to, the Guidelines themselves.” If that were not so, the institutional constraints that make the Guidelines constitutional in the first place — congressional review and notice and comment — would lose their meaning.

Jim’s case was remanded for resentencing.

United States v. Havis, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17042 (6th Cir. June 6, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Supreme Court 922(g) Case May Hold Unintended Consequence for Felons with Guns – Update for April 29, 2019

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

SLEEPER

An oral argument last Tuesday in Rehaif v. United States took a surprising turn, and could make a Supreme Court decision in the case the “sleeper” of the Court’s 2018-2019 term.

gunknot181009Refresher first: Federal law prohibits a long list of people from possessing guns or ammunition. The statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), bans ownership by people charged with felonies, people convicted of felonies, people who have been certified as crazy, people who beat their spouses, people subject to protection orders, people who do drugs, people who are here illegally, and so on and so on.

The statute (922(g)) is colloquially known as the “felon-in-possession” statute, although its reach is much broader than that. Read the statute to figure out where you fit.

A quirk of the felon-in-possession statute is that it provides no punishment. Rather, punishment is meted out by another statute, 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2), which specifies a 10-year sentence for people who “knowingly” violate 922(g).

But “knowingly” what? Do you have to know it is a gun? Or a round of ammo? Do you have to know you are a felon or a drug abuser or here illegally? Do you have to know you are possessing it? Up to now, the statute was interpreted by the courts as requiring only that you know that it’s a firearm or ammunition.

Which brings us to the unluckiest hedonist in America, Hamid Rehaif. Hammy came to the US to attend college. Under immigration law, he retained his student-visa status only as long as he remained enrolled as a full-time student. But when he got here, he discovered that the non-classroom parts of college were more fun, the bars, the tailgating, the frat parties, all of the stuff that has conspired to place less of a workload on college students than on eighth graders.

Naturally, Hammy flunked out. But he had so much fun doing it that he couldn’t give it up. Instead of returning to his mother country with his academic tail between his legs, Hammy stayed in America. In Florida, actually, and who could blame him?

florida190429But events conspired against him. One day he went to a shooting range, rented a Glock .40 cal. pistol (is this a great country or what?), and happily blasted away at targets for an hour or so.  A few weeks later, some solid citizen reported Hamid, because she had seen him skulking around an apartment building (he lived there, but then, he is Middle Eastern, so of course he must be a terrorist). The FBI came by to talk to him, and Hammy – who had been at a party instead of an American government class, and thus did not know about the “right to remain silent” part of the Constitution – mentioned at one point in the interview that he had been shooting a few weeks before.

Like I used to tell my clients, remaining silent is not just a  right – it’s a whopping’ good idea. Hamid was charged as an unlawful alien in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). Of course, he was convicted, despite the fact Hammy argued he did not know he was in the country illegally. The trial court said that did not matter. The only “knowledge” provision of 922(g) that mattered was that he knew he possessed a gun, even just for an hour.

knowledge190429The question of whether “knowingly” meant a defendant had to be aware of his or her status (felon, spouse-beater, drug-abuser, illegal-alien, whatever) in order to violate 922(g). At oral argument last week, the Supreme Court justices quickly saw the slippery slope: if they rule that the government must prove an unauthorized immigrant with a firearm knew he was in the country illegally, that ruling will necessarily mean it will have to prove that a felon with a firearm knows he or she is a felon.

If Hamid’s conviction is reversed, the practical consequences could be huge. Only Justice Alito seemed to accept the current view that a defendant need not know his or her status to violate the statute.

Justice Ginsburg wondered what would happen if the Court ruled that status under 922(g) requires knowledge: “How many people who have been convicted under felon-in-possession charges could now say, well, the Supreme Court has said… I can’t be convicted of [the] crime I was convicted of, so I want to get out. I want habeas.” The government’s lawyer responded that “under Bousley v. United States, the defendant would have to show on collateral review that he was actually innocent, meaning he actually did not know about his status.”

It is tricky to predict a Supreme Court case’s outcome from oral argument, but the headcount strongly suggests Hamid will win. If the Supremes’ decision holds that knowledge of felon (or illegal immigrant) status is an element of a 922(g) offense, a flood of actual-innocence 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petitions is sure to follow. That would make Rehaif the “sleeper” decision of the year.

Rehaif v. United States, Case No. 17-9560 (Supreme Court, decision by June 30, 2019)

SCOTUSBlog.com, Argument analysis: Court leaning toward requiring the government to prove that a felon in possession knew he was a felon (Apr. 24)

– Thomas L. Root

Convicted CEO Wins Back Gun Rights – Update for October 9, 2018

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

LISAStatHeader2small

DISTRICT COURT SAYS NOT ALL FELONIES MAKE YOU A FELON-IN-POSSESSION

carriefgun170807One of the most popular offenses charged by U.S. Attorneys is 18 USC 922(g)(1), the felon-in-possession statute. The section prohibits people who have been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year from possessing firearms or ammunition that have traveled in interstate commerce.

There’s a twist, however (isn’t there always?) Under 18 USC 921(20), a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” does not include any federal or state offenses “pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices…”

Greg Reyes, a corporate executive who did 18 months in 2010 for fraudulent backdating of corporate stock options, has sued the Dept. of Justice, arguing that his securities law convictions were “similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices,” and thus he was not prohibited from buying a handgun.

gunknot181009The government responded that “other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices…” were only those relating to antitrust or unfair trade practices. The district court, however, held a week ago that a similar offense is any other offense “if an examination of either its primary purpose or the elements of the violation reveals that the offense statute is designed primarily to address economic harm to consumers or competition.”

Under this standard, none of Greg’s prior convictions for securities fraud, falsifying corporate books and records, and making false statements to accountants required the government to prove an effect on competition or consumers. Nevertheless, the court ruled, each offense was clearly enacted for the purpose of protecting consumers.

The district court concluded that Greg’s felony convictions did not prevent him from possessing guns or ammo. The court did not have to reach Greg’s secondary issue, that the statute violated equal protection by artificially parsing the convictions which would or would not prevent possession of firearms.

gun160711The court  denied a motion by DOJ to dismiss Greg’s lawsuit and set deadline this week to decide whether final relief should be granted in favor of the former executive.

Reyes v. Sessions, Case No. 17-1643 (D.D.C. Sept. 28, 2018)

Guns.com, Convicted securities fraud exec may get gun rights back (Oct. 3, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small