Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 11-5150
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:11-cr-00087-BO-1)
Argued:
Decided:
this
appeal,
the
government
challenges
the
district
possession
of
firearm
by
convicted
felon,
in
less
than
one
year
on
the
predicate
state
conviction
district
the
courts
order
dismissing
indictment,
reinstate
I.
In July 2011, Cozart entered a guilty plea to a charge of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924.
18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). 1
The
firearm
charge
was
Cozarts
earlier
conviction
under
sentence
of
conviction,
10
to
even
12
though
months
the
imprisonment
statutory
for
presumptive
the
state
range
of
record
level
was
10
to
13
months
imprisonment.
(Emphasis in original.)
sentencing
or
indictment,
of
his
offense
(Emphasis in original.)
Cozarts
conviction
be
found
to
have
been
of
conviction
under
922(g).
and
dismissed
the
indictment.
The
II.
In considering the issue of law before us, we apply an
established
district
standard
courts
of
order
review.
We
vacating
evaluate
Cozarts
de
novo
conviction
the
and
F.3d 270, 275 (4th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo legal issues
underlying
district
courts
vacatur
of
conviction);
United
States v. Hatcher, 560 F.3d 222, 224 (4th Cir. 2009) (reviewing
district courts dismissal of indictment de novo when dismissal
was based on a conclusion of law).
In
Simmons,
we
analyzed
federal
statute
requiring
In construing this
prior
imprisonment
conviction
greater
than
was
one
punishable
year,
should
by
not
term
of
look
to
the
maximum sentence that the state court could have imposed for a
hypothetical defendant who was guilty of an aggravated offense
or had a substantial prior criminal record.
Id. at 243-47.
We
that
particular
defendants
level of aggravation.
actual
criminal
history
and
691 F.3d 554, 559 (4th Cir. 2012) (summarizing Simmons holding).
The statutory language at issue in Simmons is substantively
identical to the language of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) at issue in
this case.
of
the
firearm
offense
predicate
conviction
for
See 18
federal
conviction
was
invalid
under
Simmons.
Our
term
of
imprisonment
greater
than
one
year,
but
for
exceeding
defendants
prior
one
record
year
for
that
level
and
the
crime
absence
conviction
for
such
defendant
was
given
not
the
of
any
We held that
punishable
by
at 243-45.
In United States v. Edmonds, 679 F.3d 169, 176-77 (4th Cir.
2012),
issued
conviction,
we
after
the
emphasized
district
that
court
Simmons
vacated
does
not
Cozarts
direct
the
extent
of
his
potential
punishment
for
that
offense.
The
defendant
in
Edmonds
had
received
an
enhanced
on
two
prior
drug
convictions
that
the
district
court
year.
679
F.3d
at
176.
For
one
of
these
two
prior
rejected
Edmonds
argument
that
this
prior
state
maximum
conviction.
because
sentence
he
could
Edmonds
imprisonment
that
for
could
that
have
received
offense,
the
have
received
for
his
term
offense
of
14
months
qualified
as
a
Id.
at 176-77.
The reasoning applied by the district court in the present
case was contrary to our holding in Simmons, as further applied
by our holding in Edmonds.
record
level
rendered
him
to
receive
for
that
Thus,
crime
that
was
punishable
imprisonment
for
term
prior
imprisonment.
conviction
to
term
of
up
to
13
months
sentence
on
Cozart
for
his
violation
of
18
U.S.C.