United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2012-09-26
18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
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; claim: (g)
Uncertainty
None recorded
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.
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.
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.
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. Spears — 697 F.3d 592 (2012) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2012 (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: comparator/merits | · 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. Spears — 697 F.3d 592 (2012) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2012 (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. Spears — 697 F.3d 592 (2012) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2012 — not reached (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Possession in or affecting commerce | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (g); 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); subject: 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) 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). | affecting-commerce/unrecovered-firearm-no-proof-of-out-of-state-manufacture | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_697.jsonl#/f3d/697/0592-01; Unicode character offsets [29456:29639] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ae413cd04796506aa44ba7632be5a6ba3a7c81931e7aad16254f606d50ea5593.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_697.jsonl#/f3d/697/0592-01; Unicode character offsets [30561:30746] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ae413cd04796506aa44ba7632be5a6ba3a7c81931e7aad16254f606d50ea5593.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_697.jsonl#/f3d/697/0592-01; Unicode character offsets [25857:26026] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ae413cd04796506aa44ba7632be5a6ba3a7c81931e7aad16254f606d50ea5593. |