Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03472/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03472-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Earnest Jesse Richardson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3472

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Plaintiff - Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal From the United States

* District Court for the District

Earnest Jesse Richardson, also * of Minnesota.

known as Ernest Jesse Richardson, *

also known as Torrence C. Epps, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

*

___________

Submitted: June 23, 2005

Filed: March 2, 2006

___________

Before LOKEN, HEANEY, WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, MURPHY, BYE, RILEY,

MELLOY, SMITH, COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

We issued a panel opinion in this matter on November 4, 2005. The defendant

filed for rehearing en banc on the limited issue set forth in Section V of that opinion,

namely, whether a defendant, based upon a single act of possession, can be convicted

and punished under both 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon in possession) and (g)(3) (drug

user in possession). The government conceded that rehearing is appropriate and

joined the defendant in his request for rehearing en banc. For the reasons set forth

Appellate Case: 04-3472 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2006 Entry ID: 2015860
-2-

below, we grant the petition for rehearing and vacate Section V of our prior opinion.

This grant of rehearing does not affect the other sections of our prior opinion.

We briefly summarize the facts relevant to the issue before the en banc court.

Richardson was convicted of a single incident of possession of a firearm on February

4, 2003. At the time he possessed the firearm he was both a convicted felon and a

drug user. The government charged Richardson in two separate counts, that is, one

count of being a felon in possession of a firearm on February 4, 2003, and a separate

count of being a drug user in possession of a firearm on the same date. Richardson

argued that the counts of conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and being a drug user in possession of a firearm in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) arose out of a single act of possession of a firearm

and, therefore, should have been merged at sentencing into a single offense. The

panel decision in this case affirmed the multiple convictions based on our controlling

precedent in United States v. Peterson, 867 F.2d 1110 (8th Cir. 1989), abrogated on

other grounds by Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990).

In Peterson, we held that separate convictions for § 922(g)(1) and § 922(g)(3)

arising out of a single act of firearm possession were not multiplicitous. We now

overrule Peterson and join all the other Circuits that have addressed this issue to hold

that Congress intended the “allowable unit of prosecution” to be an incident of

possession regardless of whether a defendant satisfied more than one § 922(g)

classification, possessed more than one firearm, or possessed a firearm and

ammunition. See Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81, 81 (1955) (describing the unit

of prosecution test); see also, United States v. Verrecchia, 196 F.3d 294, 297-98 (1st

Cir. 1999) (applying Bell to hold that a felon’s possession of multiple firearms

comprised a single offense); United States v. Dunford, 148 F.3d 385, 388-90 (4th Cir.

1998) (applying Bell to hold that the possession of multiple firearms and ammunition

by a felon who was also an illegal drug user comprised a single offense); United States

v. Cunningham, 145 F.3d 1385, 1398-99 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (applying Bell to hold that

Appellate Case: 04-3472 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2006 Entry ID: 2015860
-3-

the possession of multiple firearms comprised only one offense barring proof that the

firearms were obtained at different times or stored separately); United States v. Keen,

104 F.3d 1111, 1118-20 (9th Cir. 1996) (applying Bell to hold that a felon’s

possession of a firearm and ammunition comprised only one offense); United States

v. Hall, 77 F.3d 398, 402 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding that a felon’s simultaneous

possession of a firearm and ammunition comprised only one offense); United States

v. Munoz-Romo, 989 F.2d 757, 758-59 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that the possession

of a firearm by an illegal alien who was also a felon comprised only one offense);

United States v. Throneburg, 921 F.2d 654, 657 (6th Cir. 1990) (holding that a felon’s

simultaneous possession of a firearm and ammunition comprised only one offense);

United States v. Pelusio, 725 F.2d 161, 168-69 (2d Cir. 1983) (applying Bell to hold

that the receipt of a firearm and ammunition comprised only one offense); United

States v. Valentine, 706 F.2d 282, 292-94 (10th Cir. 1983) (applying Bell to hold that

the simultaneous possession of more than one weapon constituted only one offense);

United States v. Frankenberry, 696 F.2d 239, 244-45 (3d Cir. 1982) (applying Bell to

hold that the receipt of multiple firearms comprised only one offense); United States

v. Oliver, 683 F.2d 224, 232-33 (7th Cir. 1982) (applying Bell to hold that the

simultaneous receipt of a firearm and ammunition comprised only one offense).

We remand to the district court to vacate the sentence, merge the counts of

conviction into one count, and resentence the defendant based on a single conviction

under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3472 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/02/2006 Entry ID: 2015860