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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT