United States v. Kenny B. McCline ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
    To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    Submitted March 30, 2020*
    Decided March 31, 2020
    Before
    FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
    ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
    DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
    No. 18-3453                                                     Appeal from the United
    States District Court for the
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                       Southern District of Illinois.
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                               No. 3:17-CR-30200-SMY-1
    Staci M. Yandle, Judge.
    KENNY B. MCCLINE,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Order
    Kenny McCline pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm, despite felony convictions
    that made it unlawful for him to do so. 
    18 U.S.C. §922
    (g)(1). While this case was pend-
    ing on appeal, the Supreme Court held in Rehaif v. United States, 
    139 S. Ct. 2191
     (2019),
    that knowledge of the disqualifying felony conviction is an element of the offense de-
    fined by §922(g)(1). McCline asks us to vacate his guilty plea, because before the judge
    * After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary.
    See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
    No. 18-3453                                                                       Page 2
    accepted that plea she did not inform him that, at a trial, the prosecution would need to
    prove that he knew that a prior conviction made it unlawful for him to possess firearms.
    McCline has not argued, however, that he was unaware of his legal disability, and
    such an argument would not be plausible. A disqualifying conviction is one “punisha-
    ble by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” (§922(g)(1)). McCline has several
    such convictions, and he actually served more than a year in prison for four of them. He
    does not contend that he was ignorant of the fact that being sentenced to, and serving,
    more than a year in prison shows that a sentence exceeding one year was authorized.
    Instead McCline argues that the prosecutor must show the absence of prejudice,
    which should be presumed. This court rejected that argument in United States v. Wil-
    liams, 
    946 F.3d 968
     (7th Cir. 2020). Williams controls this appeal.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-3453

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 3/31/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/31/2020