Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-30155/USCOURTS-ca5-19-30155-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Seth Rivers
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30155

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSEPH SETH RIVERS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:18-CR-82-1

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joseph Seth Rivers pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of four 

firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was sentenced to 68 months 

of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He timely appealed 

and now argues that his conviction is invalid because the district court failed 

to properly admonish him regarding the nature of the charge as required by 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(G).

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 9, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-30155 Document: 00515265680 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2020
No. 19-30155

2

We review the argument advanced by Rivers only for plain error since it 

was not raised in the district court. See United States v. Alvarado-Casas, 715 

F.3d 945, 953 (5th Cir. 2013). “To convict under Section 922(g)(1), the 

government must prove,” as relevant here, that the defendant possessed a 

firearm. United States v. Massey, 849 F.3d 262, 264 (5th Cir. 2017). The 

indictment here alleged this element, the district court recited it for Rivers, 

and the district court ensured that Rivers understood the concept of 

constructive, as opposed to actual, possession.

Relying primarily on Henderson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1780 (2015), 

Rivers contends that the district court’s interpretation of § 922(g)(1) and its 

admonishment as to the nature of that offense is erroneous because it conflates 

the rights of legitimate ownership of a firearm with a felon’s right to possess a 

firearm. Section 922(g)(1) contains no requirement that the possession of 

firearms by a convicted felon be divorced from any ownership rights in the 

firearms, and Henderson does not purport to add any such element. See

§ 922(g)(1); Henderson, 135 S. Ct. at 1785 n.3. We conclude that the district 

court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in admonishing Rivers as to the nature 

of the charge against him. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-30155 Document: 00515265680 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2020