United States v. Rogers
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
371 F.3d 1225 (2004)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
Kenneth Rogers (defendant) was indicted for the offense of possession of a firearm while subject to a protection order and the offense of possession of a firearm following a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence. The government (plaintiff) requested a detention hearing pursuant to the Bail Reform Act (BRA), which gives the government the authority to request such hearings for crimes of violence. Following the hearing, the magistrate judge found that there was a serious risk that Rogers would pose a danger to others if released and ordered that Rogers be detained while the trial was pending. Rogers moved for further review of his detention on the ground that the court should not have allowed the hearing because his offenses did not constitute crimes of violence. Rogers argued that other circuits had concluded that a possession of a firearm by a convicted felon did not constitute a crime of violence and requested the district court make a similar finding for his offenses. The district court then concluded that weapon-possession crimes do not constitute crimes of violence under the BRA. The government appealed on the ground the district court incorrectly concluded that possession while subject to a protection order and after a domestic-violence conviction do not constitute violent crimes.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Murphy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

