United States v. Terrance Rush ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 19-2892
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Terrance Dion Rush
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
    ____________
    Submitted: November 17, 2020
    Filed: November 20, 2020
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before ERICKSON, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Terrence Rush appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense and to being
    a felon in possession of a firearm, and the district court1 imposed sentence. He
    1
    The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern
    District of Iowa.
    contends that there was insufficient evidence supporting his guilty plea to being a
    felon in possession of a firearm. He also challenges his sentence and asserts that he
    received ineffective assistance of counsel.
    We conclude that there was a sufficient factual basis for Rush’s guilty plea to
    the felon-in-possession charge. See United States v. Christenson, 
    653 F.3d 697
    , 700
    (8th Cir. 2011) (reviewing challenge to unobjected-to factual basis for guilty plea for
    plain error); United States v. Garcia-Hernandez, 
    803 F.3d 994
    , 997 (8th Cir. 2015)
    (mens rea requirement does not apply to interstate-commerce element of 18 U.S.C.
    § 922(g)); see also Rehaif v. United States, 
    139 S. Ct. 2191
    , 2196 (2019)
    (presumption in favor of scienter requirement does not apply to jurisdictional
    elements). In addition, we find no merit to Rush’s sentencing challenge, and we
    decline to address any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in this direct appeal.
    See United States v. Hernandez, 
    281 F.3d 746
    , 749 (8th Cir. 2002) (in general,
    ineffective-assistance claim is not cognizable on direct appeal; such claim is properly
    raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-2892

Filed Date: 11/20/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/20/2020