United States v. Ronald Gene Brown

408 F.3d 1016, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 8059, 2005 WL 1074396
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided May 9, 2005·No. 04-2156·Published·Cited by 17 cases

Opinion

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

In August 2002, while executing a consent search, the Cape Girardeau sheriff uncovered 91 rounds of ammunition at the residence of Ronald Gene Brown. A jury convicted Brown of being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court 1 sentenced him to 188 months imprisonment as an armed career criminal.

Brown appeals, arguing that the state restored his rights so that he has not been “convicted” of a prior felony, and that the sentence was improper as his prior convictions were not “serious drug offenses.” This court reviews these issues de novo. See United States v. Woodall, 120 F.3d 880, 881 (8th Cir.1997); United States v. Collins, 321 F.3d 691, 696 (8th Cir.2003). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

I.

A person convicted in any court of a crime punishable by more than one year may not possess ammunition. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The predicate conviction cannot have been expunged or set aside, nor can the person have been pardoned for it, or had civil rights restored. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20); DeRoo v. United States, 223 F.3d 919, 925 (8th Cir.2000). The status of a conviction is determined by the law of the jurisdiction where the proceedings were held — in this case, Missouri. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20); Caron v. United States, 524 U.S. 308, 313, 118 S.Ct. 2007, 141 L.Ed.2d 303 (1998).

Brown asserts that Missouri has restored his civil rights, eliminating his four state felonies as predicates for section 922(g)(1). Missouri automatically restores some civil rights, such as voting (upon release from confinement) and holding' office (upon completion of sentence). See Mo.Rev.Stat. §§ 561.016, 561.026(1), 561.021.2. 2 However, felons may not serve as jurors, sheriffs, highway patrol officers, state fire investigators or employees, state lottery licensees or employees, or manage, conduct or operate bingo games. See Mo. Rev.Stat. §§ 494.425(4), 540.045.1, 561.026(3), 57.010.1, 43.060.1, 320.210, 313.245, 313.255.6(2), 313.035.1(1); Mo. Const. Art. Ill, sec. 39(a)(3)(e). Moreover, felons face statutory hurdles to being licensed in many occupations and professions. See Appendix A to this opinion.

Because Missouri withholds substantial civil rights, Brown has not been restored to sufficient civil rights in order to invoke section 921(a)(20). See Presley v. United States, 851 F.2d 1052, 1053 (8th Cir.1988); United States v. Williams, 128 F.3d 1128, 1134 (7th Cir.1997) (applying Missouri law); United States v. Meeks, 987 F.2d 575, 577-78 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 *1018 U.S. 919, 114 S.Ct. 314, 126 L.Ed.2d 261 (1993)' (applying Missouri law).

Finally, Brown argues that Article I, Section 23; of the Missouri Constitution guarantees all citizens the right to bear arms. Even this civil right is qualified, as Article I, Section 23, leaves the regulation of concealed weapons to the General Assembly. Brooks v. State, 128 S.W.3d 844, 848-49 (Mo.2004). The Assembly has specifically prohibited felons from possessing concealed weapons. See Mo.Rev.Stat. § § 571.101.2(2); 571.030.1(2), 571.030.1.4 (Supp.2003). As the legislature has chosen not to restore substantially a felon’s right to bear arms, Brown’s state convictions were proper predicates for section 922(g)(1). See United States v. Ellis, 949 F.2d 952, 953 (8th Cir.1991) (applying Minnesota law); United States v. Traxel, 914 F.2d 119, 123 (8th Cir.1990) (applying Minnesota law).

II.

In April 1991, Brown pleaded guilty to three Missouri felonies: delivery of methamphetamine, delivery of more than five grams of marijuana, and delivery of hydromorphone. See Mo.Rev.Stat. § 195.211. Each conviction carried a five-to fifteen-year sentence.

The district court ruled that these three convictions were serious drug- offenses. Brown thus faced a mandatory minimum 15-year sentence for his conviction under section 922(g)(1). See 18 ' U.S.C. § 924(e)(1); United States v. Long, 320 F.3d 795, 801-02 (8th Cir.2003)„ A serious drug offense includes “an offense under State law, involving manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance. ...” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii).

Because this statutory definition omits “delivering,” Brown argues that his state convictions are not serious drug offenses. He claims delivery is similar to simple possession, which is not a serious drug offense. See United States v. Whitfield, 907 F.2d 798, 800 (8th Cir.1990) (possession conviction is not a serious drug offense where it is unclear whether the conviction is for mere possession, or possession with intent to distribute or manufacture).

To determine whether state convictions involve distributing or , manufacturing controlled substances, a. court begins with the statutory definition of the state offense. Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). Here, the Missouri statute prohibiting delivery of controlled substances states:

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

United States v. Ronald Gene Brown, 408 F.3d 1016, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 8059, 2005 WL 1074396 (8th Cir. 2005).

408 F.3d 1016 (United States v. Ronald Gene Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Alexander Coleman
977 F.3d 666 (Eighth Circuit, 2020)
United States v. Christopher Williams
976 F.3d 781 (Eighth Circuit, 2020)
Johnson v. Department of State Police
2019 IL 124213 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2020)
Hartwell v. Werlich
S.D. Illinois, 2019
United States v. Jones
530 F. App'x 747 (Tenth Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Rodney Edward Thompson
702 F.3d 604 (Eleventh Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Bynum
669 F.3d 880 (Eighth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Akens
602 F.3d 904 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Joseph Akens
Eighth Circuit, 2010
United States v. Walker
494 F.3d 688 (Eighth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Christopher M. Barker
437 F.3d 787 (Eighth Circuit, 2006)