United States v. Abernathy
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
83 F. 3d 17 (1996)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
The federal government (plaintiff) indicted James H. Abernathy (defendant) for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and for possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(k). Abernathy pleaded guilty to both counts. Neither the prosecutor, the defense counsel, nor the trial judge understood, and no one informed Abernathy, that a conviction on the § 922(k) count required proof that Abernathy actually knew that the weapon in his possession carried an obliterated serial number. There were indications on the record that Abernathy remained unaware of the requirement throughout the plea proceedings. Based on federal sentencing guideline USSG § 2K2.1(b)(4), the judge sentenced Abernathy to an enhanced prison term. The judge subsequently denied Abernathy's Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, and Abernathy appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judge's ruling as to the § 922(g)(1) count. Abernathy focused his § 922(k) appeal on the knowledge element of the crime. As a threshold matter, the court ruled that USSG § 2K2.1(b)(4) was irrelevant to the appeal, because it explicitly applied "whether or not" a convicted defendant knew or had reason to know of the serial number's obliteration.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Aldrich, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
