United States v. Kendal Harris ( 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  •                                 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 19-1794                                                     Appeal from the United
    States District Court for the
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                       Western District of Wiscon-
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    sin.
    v.
    No. 0758 3:18CR00131-001
    KENDAL J. HARRIS,                                               William M. Conley, Judge.
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Order
    Kendal Harris 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 pending 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 defined by
    §922(g)(1). Harris asks us to vacate his guilty plea, because before the judge accepted
    * 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. 19-1794                                                                        Page 2
    that plea he 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.
    Harris 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)). Harris has at least two
    such convictions, and he actually served more than a year in prison for 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 Harris argues that the prosecutor must show the absence of prejudice, which
    should be presumed. This court rejected that argument in United States v. Williams, 
    946 F.3d 968
    (7th Cir. 2020). Williams controls this appeal.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-1794

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 3/31/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/31/2020