/f-supp-2d/28/0805-01

United States District Court for the Western District of New York · 1998-11-20

Original case on neochart.com

Case and law context

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)

Role: comparator; posture: criminal; pretrial detention order on an indictment charging felon-in-possession; the court decides, by the categorical approach, that a 922(g)(1) offense is a "crime of violence" under the Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. 3156(a)(4)(B)) so that a detention hearing may be held, then orders detention on dangerousness and flight risk; guilt under 922(g)(1) is not adjudicated; result: not-decided; claim: (g)(1)

Instances and excluded annotation blocks

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
CaseElementHolding and scopeVariantExact source quotations
/f-supp-2d/28/0805-01 — United States District Court for the Western District of New York · 1998Actual or constructive possessionnot_reached
Excluded from merits counts
comparator / procedural

claim: (g)(1)

Weight-of-the-evidence factor of the detention decision (3142(g)), on government proffer only; not a finding of possession. The court also relies on the general proposition that simple possession is not literally violent but inherently risky in a felon's hands.
actual/control
It involves a charge that a convicted felon possessed and sold four semi-automatic guns in August of 1998, for the sum of $2,000.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_28.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/28/0805-01; Unicode character offsets [17746:17875] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bddd7660e5992492800b48b04183ba9f40e20eaa90c71e99be04e9adce960d44.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

The proffer by the Government is that the gun sale was a hand-to-hand transaction and that there was surveillance by police officers and that some of the proceedings may indeed have been video taped.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_28.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/28/0805-01; Unicode character offsets [20332:20531] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bddd7660e5992492800b48b04183ba9f40e20eaa90c71e99be04e9adce960d44.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

In addition, I believe the evidence against Mr. Campbell on the pending federal charges are quite strong.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_28.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/28/0805-01; Unicode character offsets [20226:20331] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bddd7660e5992492800b48b04183ba9f40e20eaa90c71e99be04e9adce960d44.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

/f-supp-2d/28/0805-01 — United States District Court for the Western District of New York · 1998Conviction punishable by more than one yearnot_reached
Excluded from merits counts
comparator / merits

claim: (g)(1); theory: categorical characterization of the felon-in-possession offense as a Bail Reform Act crime of violence; subject: theory=categorical characterization of the felon-in-possession offense as a Bail Reform Act crime of violence

The held line classifies the 922(g)(1) offense as a whole (felon status combined with possession) for another statute; it decides nothing about whether this defendant has a qualifying conviction. The prior-record sentence comes from the detention findings (3142(g)), on proffer, and is legally irrelevant to the categorical ruling; it is kept only as the alleged status fact.
categorical-nature/felon-in-possession-as-bail-act-crime-of-violence
Campbell has an extensive prior record with nine convictions including three felony convictions over the past decade.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_28.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/28/0805-01; Unicode character offsets [18209:18326] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bddd7660e5992492800b48b04183ba9f40e20eaa90c71e99be04e9adce960d44.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Under the categorical approach, the court looks only to the intrinsic nature of the offense itself as it is defined by statute, and does not consider any of the specific facts surrounding the alleged offense.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_28.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/28/0805-01; Unicode character offsets [3917:4125] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bddd7660e5992492800b48b04183ba9f40e20eaa90c71e99be04e9adce960d44.

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

It is equally reasonable to infer that a person who has been convicted of a felony, yet is in unlawful possession of a firearm, is more likely to use that firearm in the course of committing a crime.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_28.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/28/0805-01; Unicode character offsets [11700:11899] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bddd7660e5992492800b48b04183ba9f40e20eaa90c71e99be04e9adce960d44.

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

For all these reasons, then, I conclude that possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) constitutes a “crime of violence” as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 3156(a)(4)(B).
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_28.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/28/0805-01; Unicode character offsets [16064:16269] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bddd7660e5992492800b48b04183ba9f40e20eaa90c71e99be04e9adce960d44.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Court interpretations recorded from this case