United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994-08-17
18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: criminal; jury conviction on seven firearms and drug counts (Count Six = 922(g)(1)); defendant appeals admission of the details of his prior convictions (plain error), denial of severance, and his absence from an in-chambers conference on a jury question; result: claimant-won; claim: (g)(1)
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
The 922(g)(1) discussion is an unpreserved evidentiary objection decided at the third step of Olano plain-error review on an assumed error; it is recorded as `not-reached` + `scope procedural` because this court made no ruling on the element. The jury's unreviewed finding of felon status ("found by the jury, unchallenged on appeal") has no holding/basis value and survives only in the gloss and fact lines.
Severance of the 922(g)(1) count from the drug and false-statement counts (Rule 14; no limiting instruction required absent request or patent prejudice) is tied to the status evidence but is not a ruling on any declared element; not recorded as a block. The Rule 43 jury-question issue concerns the 21 U.S.C. 841 count only.
Judge Hamilton's special concurrence argues that under Rule 403 the nature and circumstances of the prior felony should be excluded even without a stipulation (redacted record suffices) and that admitting them here was error; v1 has no scope for a concurrence (known), so it is not recorded.
No temporal flag: the opinion predates Old Chief (1997), which later settled the stipulation question the court starts from (Poore).
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 12
| Case | One applicable prohibited category | Section 925(a)(1) government-use firearm or ammunition exception | Actual or constructive possession | Firearm or ammunition under section 921 | Possession in or affecting commerce | Knowledge of possessing the firearm or ammunition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Rhodes — 32 F.3d 867 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994 (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/merits | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 12
| Case | Knowledge of the relevant disqualifying status | Second Amendment limit on the unlawful-user theory applied to Hemani | Ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce | Knowing shipping, transportation or receipt | Receipt of the prohibited object | Received object previously shipped or transported across borders |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Rhodes — 32 F.3d 867 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994 (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Rhodes — 32 F.3d 867 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994 — not reached (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Actual or constructive possession | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (g)(1) Count Six charged possession of a Beretta .380; the jury convicted and possession is not challenged on appeal. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Rhodes — 32 F.3d 867 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994 — not reached (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Conviction punishable by more than one year | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural claim: (g)(1); count: Count Six (possession of a Beretta .380 pistol); subject: count=Count Six (possession of a Beretta .380 pistol) REAL RULING: evidentiary, on plain-error review - admission of the details of the prior convictions (indictments, complaints, sentencing transcript) is assumed arguendo to be error and held not to have affected substantial rights given overwhelming evidence. This court does not decide whether the status element was met: the jury found it on certified New York records and its sufficiency was never challenged on appeal. Hence not-reached, scope procedural; the fact lines record the trial proof, the held line is the no-prejudice ruling. | certified-records-with-offense-details-no-stipulation | Exhibits Six and Seven were certified copies of convictions on indictments returned in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of the Bronx.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_32.jsonl#/f3d/32/0867-01; Unicode character offsets [2327:2478] (end exclusive); SHA-256 92e90cf7550f23e3c842be216d2d82bd4cf9e5cf3244710150d55f787a1c2894.Pursuant to this indictment, Rhodes pleaded guilty in the New York court to first degree manslaughter.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_32.jsonl#/f3d/32/0867-01; Unicode character offsets [2839:2941] (end exclusive); SHA-256 92e90cf7550f23e3c842be216d2d82bd4cf9e5cf3244710150d55f787a1c2894.A jury found Rhodes guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree, and apparently not guilty of the remaining counts of the indictment which were not dismissed.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_32.jsonl#/f3d/32/0867-01; Unicode character offsets [3450:3673] (end exclusive); SHA-256 92e90cf7550f23e3c842be216d2d82bd4cf9e5cf3244710150d55f787a1c2894.Rhodes’s counsel stated, “No objection” and the district court then ruled, “Be so admitted.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_32.jsonl#/f3d/32/0867-01; Unicode character offsets [4122:4214] (end exclusive); SHA-256 92e90cf7550f23e3c842be216d2d82bd4cf9e5cf3244710150d55f787a1c2894.The nature of the conviction is not an element of Section 922(g)(1).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_32.jsonl#/f3d/32/0867-01; Unicode character offsets [10647:10715] (end exclusive); SHA-256 92e90cf7550f23e3c842be216d2d82bd4cf9e5cf3244710150d55f787a1c2894.However, when a defendant does not stipulate the fact of his prior conviction, the Government must prove it because it is an element of the offense.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_32.jsonl#/f3d/32/0867-01; Unicode character offsets [10861:11009] (end exclusive); SHA-256 92e90cf7550f23e3c842be216d2d82bd4cf9e5cf3244710150d55f787a1c2894.We do not find that the error we assume for purposes of deciding this case affected Rhodes’s substantial rights.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_32.jsonl#/f3d/32/0867-01; Unicode character offsets [12685:12797] (end exclusive); SHA-256 92e90cf7550f23e3c842be216d2d82bd4cf9e5cf3244710150d55f787a1c2894. |