United States v. Daniel Joseph Bell

983 F.2d 910
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 13, 1993
Docket91-30417, 92-30195
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 983 F.2d 910 (United States v. Daniel Joseph Bell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Daniel Joseph Bell, 983 F.2d 910 (9th Cir. 1993).

Opinion

ORDER

The memorandum disposition filed November 24, 1992 is redesignated as a per curiam opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Joseph Bell (Bell) appeals the sentence, imposed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), upon his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

The sentence enhancement was predicated on four felony convictions: three first degree burglary convictions in Oregon in 1981 and 1985, and one second degree burglary conviction in Washington in 1987. Bell was discharged from the three Oregon convictions in August 1989, and his civil rights were thereupon restored. Or.Rev.Stat. § 137.281 (1987).

A conviction for which a defendant has had his civil rights restored may not be counted as a predicate conviction. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20). To determine whether a particular civil right has been restored, the sentencing court must look to the whole of state law at the time of the restoration, without regard to whether state law subsequently changed that right. United States v. Cardwell, 967 F.2d 1349, 1350-51 (9th Cir.1992). When Bell’s civil rights were restored, discharged felons could possess a rifle of the type involved in this case. Or.Rev.Stat. § 166.270 (1987). Accordingly, Bell’s three Oregon convictions cannot be used as predicate convictions under section 924(e) because his civil right to possess the rifle was restored upon his discharge. See Cardwell, 967 F.2d at 1350.

The sentence imposed by the district court is VACATED and the case REMANDED for resentencing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Brett D. Sorenson
81 F.3d 171 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Darrel Dwain Knaub
81 F.3d 171 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Jimmy D. Sweatt
19 F.3d 31 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
United States v. James Allan Huss
7 F.3d 1444 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Marvin James Reedy
990 F.2d 167 (Fourth Circuit, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
983 F.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-daniel-joseph-bell-ca9-1993.