Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/united-states-v-hayes-791963033
Timestamp: 2020-08-06 14:39:05
Document Index: 756866571

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 922', '§ 924', '§893', '§ 924', '§ 922', '§ 924', '§ 922', '§ 924', '§ 922']

United States v. Hayes, 061219 FED11, 18-13435 - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 791963033
Docket Nº: 18-13435
Party Name: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMAAR DANGLO HAYES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judge Panel: Before WILLIAM PRYOR, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
JAMAAR DANGLO HAYES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-13435
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:18-cr-00077-SDM-TGW-1
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Jamaar Hayes appeals his conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e). On appeal, Hayes challenges: (1) the district court's determination that the government did not have to prove Hayes knew he was a convicted felon under § 924(e); (2) the district court's reliance on its own findings that Hayes's three predicate Armed Career Criminals Act ("ACCA") offenses occurred on different occasions; (3) the Fifth and Sixth Amendment violations resulting from the district court's determination that Hayes's three predicate ACCA offenses occurred on different occasions; and (4) the district court's determination that his prior convictions under Fla. Stat. §893.13 were serious drug offenses under § 924(e). We will consider each challenge in turn.
When a defendant fails to object to a Rule 11 violation occurring during his plea colloquy in the district court, we will review only for plain error. United States v. Presendieu, 880 F.3d 1228, 1237 (11th Cir. 2018). Where a defendant raises a challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment for the first time on appeal, we will conclude that the indictment was sufficient "unless it is so defective that it does not, by any reasonable construction, charge an offense for which the defendant is convicted." United States v. Lang, 732 F.3d 1246, 1247 (11th Cir. 2013) (quotations omitted).
Section 924(a)(2) of Title 18 of the United States Code provides that a person who "knowingly violates" § 922(g) shall be imprisoned for a maximum of ten years. 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). Section 922(g)(1) of Title 18 of the United States Code criminalizes the possession of a firearm or ammunition in or affecting interstate commerce by a convicted felon. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The offense includes three distinct elements: (1) possession of a firearm ("possession element"); (2) by a convicted felon ("status element"); and (3) the possession was in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce ("commerce element"). United States v. Rehaif, 888 F.3d 1138, 1143 (11th Cir. 2018), cert. granted, 139 S.Ct. 914 (Jan. 11, 2019) (No. 17-9560).
In Rehaif, we analyzed § 924(a)(2) and held that "knowingly" does not apply to the status element of § 922(g), which in Rehaif was the defendant's status as an unlawful alien. Id. at...