ILNews

Prior conviction doesn't fall under exception

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a defendant's argument that his felon-in-possession indictment was insufficient because his previous conviction of stealing cable doesn't meet the definition of a "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" under 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(20)(A). This is the first time the 7th Circuit had addressed this issue.

In United States of America v. Kevin R. Schultz, No. 09-1192, the federal appellate judges looked to other Circuit Court decisions that have addressed Section 921(a)(20)(A), and those courts have held that not all offenses related to the regulation of business practices fall within the exclusion.

Schultz argued that his prior felony conviction doesn't meet the definition of a "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" because Congress created an exception under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(A), to exclude "any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices."

Schultz maintained his 2005 felony conviction is excluded under "similar offenses" because he was convicted of knowingly trafficking in a telecommunications instrument. After his 2005 conviction - for which he was sentenced to two years probation, with the first six months to be served on home detention - a search warrant of his home yielded a shotgun and ammunition in the attached garage. Schultz was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g), which makes it unlawful for one convicted of a crime punishable of a term exceeding one year to possess a firearm.

For Schultz's 2005 conviction to fall under the exception, the government would have to prove, as an element of the predicate offense, that competition or consumers were affected. Based on United States v. Stanko, 491 F.3d 408, 413-14 (8th Cir. 2007); United States v. Meldish, 722 F.2d 26, 27 (2d Cir. 1983); and United States v. Dreher, 115 F.3d 330, 332-33 (5th Cir. 1997), the government wasn't required to prove Schultz's conduct had an effect on consumers or the competition, wrote Judge William Bauer.

"Schultz's conviction was under Title 18, which regulates crimes and criminal procedure and not Title 15, which regulates commerce and trade. Therefore, the Section 921(a)(20)(A) exclusion does not apply to Schultz's predicate conviction," wrote the judge.

The Circuit Court also rejected Schultz's other arguments on appeal - that the Section 921(a)(20)(A) is impermissibly vague; he should have had a Franks hearing to test the validity of the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant for his house; and that his statements made while his home was searched should have been suppressed.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  2. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  3. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  4. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  5. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

ADVERTISEMENT