Source: cases/18usc922/f3d-697-592-us-v-spears.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_697/0592_01/index.html
The firearm in question was never recovered, so the government could not prove that it was manufactured outside the state and therefore had previously traveled in interstate commerce.
When it comes to evaluating the effect on interstate commerce, however, producing a fraudulent driver’s license is not analogous to possessing a firearm, the offense at issue in Groves.
casedsl 1 case /f3d/697/0592-01 name United States v. Spears cite 697 F.3d 592 (2012) court United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit date 2012-09-26 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_697/0592_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_697.jsonl sha1=61a0eaa87da038bbf38c408027b30d9e0205ac0b chars=35008 law 18usc922 (g) role comparator posture criminal; jury convictions for aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. 1028A), producing and possessing false identification documents (1028(a)(1), (a)(3)) and other counts; sufficiency appeal on those three counts only. No 922(g) charge: 922(g) appears solely through United States v. Groves, which the defendant cited and the court distinguished when deciding the 1028(c)(3)(A) "affects interstate commerce" element result not-decided element commerce-possession : not-reached theory contrast between the commerce effect of producing a fake driver's licence (1028(c)(3)(A)) and of possessing a firearm (922(g), Groves) variant affecting-commerce/unrecovered-firearm-no-proof-of-out-of-state-manufacture rule @29456..29639 | The firearm in question was never recovered, so the government could not prove that it was manufactured outside the state and therefore had previously traveled in interstate commerce. rule @30561..30746 | When it comes to evaluating the effect on interstate commerce, however, producing a fraudulent driver’s license is not analogous to possessing a firearm, the offense at issue in Groves. rule @25857..26026 [quoted] | interstate nexus requirement is a factual predicate, not a mens rea element of the crime that would require proof of defendant’s knowledge of facts supporting the nexus. gloss The court describes its own earlier 922(g) decision (Groves: gun never recovered, so no manufacture/travel proof; a chain of downstream social effects of the possession is too tenuous to show the commerce element) only to say that the fake-licence production here is different. Nothing about this defendant is a 922(g) fact. The third rule line (quoted from Sarraj, "in another context") states that a commerce nexus needs no knowledge; it is applied here to 1028, not to 922(g). misfit Negative finding: this is not a 922(g) case at all. It decides sufficiency (including an interstate-commerce element) under 18 U.S.C. 1028 and 1028A; 922(g) is a distinguished precedent's statute. The commerce holding that a rational jury could find a "realistic probability" of an effect on commerce is a 1028(c)(3)(A) holding and is deliberately not recorded as a commerce-possession instance. misfit The predicate felony for the 1028A count is 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) (customer's false statement in attempting to buy a handgun; defendant's aiding-and-abetting conviction on that count is unchallenged). The law file covers only 922(g); a different subsection of the same section has no id and no block, although the directory name is the whole section. misfit Known misfit 10: a comparator role cannot name the compared law (here 18 U.S.C. 1028(c)(3)(A)), and the rule lines are this court's summary of ANOTHER case's 922(g) holding (Groves, 470 F.3d 311), for which there is no "reported precedent" scope; `scope lower-court` does not fit.