Court Opinion

ID: 9494633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:42:54.155242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:31.768331
License: Public Domain

ALARCON, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur in Parts I, II, and IV of the opinion.
I respectfully dissent from Part III of the opinion.
*795The majority has concluded that the district court erred in enhancing Gallaher’s sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) because the certificate and order of discharge he received in 1989 (“1989 Certificate”), based on his conviction in 1985 for second-degree assault, does not expressly prohibit the possession of firearms. The majority cites our decisions in United States v. Herron, 45 F.3d 340 (9th Cir. 1995), and United States v. Laskie, 258 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir.2001), in support of this proposition. As I explain below, these cases are not dispositive because they address a totally different question: Can a prior state conviction be used as an element of the crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) where the accused has received a certificate and order of discharge that does not prohibit the possession of weapons?
We did not consider in Herron or Laskie the discrete question presented in this appeal: Whether Gallaher’s sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm can be enhanced based on his 1985 state conviction for second-degree assault in view of the fact that the 1989 Certificate did not expressly state that his prior record could be used to enhance his sentence for later offenses?
The 1989 Certificate that Gallaher received expressly stated that it was being issued “pursuant to RCW 9.94A.220.” Section 9.94A.220 of the Revised Code of Washington1 provides, in relevant portion:
Except as [otherwise] provided in ... this section, the discharge shall have the effect of restoring all civil rights lost by operation of law upon conviction, and the certificate of discharge shall so state. Nothing in this section prohibits the use of an offender’s prior record for purposes of determining sentences for later offenses as provided in this chapter. ... A certificate of discharge is not based on a finding of rehabilitation.
Wash. Rev.Code § 9.94A.220(3) (emphasis added). While the certificate received by the defendant in Herron also referred to § 9.94A.220, that Washington statute does not provide that a felon cannot possess firearms. Notwithstanding his discharge, the defendant in Herron was prohibited from possessing firearms by § 9.41.040(1) of the Revised Code of Washington. Section 9.41.040(1) was not referred to in the certificate and order of discharge received by Herron. Herron, 45 F.3d at 342. Thus, the defendant in Herron could reasonably complain he had been mousetrapped because (1) the certificate he received led him to believe he could legally possess a firearm, and (2) he was subsequently convicted by the federal government of possessing a firearm in violation of § 922(g)(1) “on the basis that the state misinformed him.” Id.
Section 9.94A.220 expressly provides that a certificate and order of discharge does not “prohibit! ] the use of an offender’s prior record for purposes of determining sentences for later offenses.” Wash. Rev.Code § 9.94A.220(3). Unlike the defendant in Herron, therefore, Gallaher had notice that the 1989 Certificate he received would not prohibit the use of his 1985 conviction for the purpose of enhancing his sentence for a future offense. Gallaher cannot justifiably complain that he was mousetrapped.
Gallaher offers no support for the view that incorporation of a prohibition to possess weapons in the 1989 Certificate by reference does not satisfy the “fair notice” requirement of § 921(a)(20) explained in *796Herron and Laskie. So long as a state provides express notice in a certificate that a felon’s civil rights have not been unqualifiedly restored, it should not make a difference whether the state lists its qualifications in the certificate itself or by reference to another document. See United States v. Simpson, 27 F.3d 355, 356-57 (9th Cir.1994) (finding no unfair surprise to a felon prosecuted under § 922(g)(1) after receiving a certificate, where the felon failed to apply to the Department of Probation to restore his civil rights as required by state statute and had been notified of the statutory requirements in papers accompanying his certificate). In either case, the state has put a felon on notice that not all his civil rights have been restored. In Herron, the certificate and order of discharge did not cite the statute that prohibited a felon from possessing a pistol. Thus, the defendant in that case was not on notice that hidden somewhere “in a corner of the state’s penal code” was a limitation on his civil rights. Herron, 45 F.3d at 343(quoting United States v. Erwin, 902 F.2d 510, 512-13 (7th Cir.1990)). The due process concerns underlying our holdings in Her-ron and Laskie are inapplicable to Gallaher’s case.
It is quite true that the 1989 Certificate did not quote the text of § 9.94A.220(3) of the Revised Code of Washington. Thus, Gallaher may have been ignorant of its provisions when he violated § 922(g)(1). A felon’s ignorance of the law or a mistake regarding the requirements of the law, however, does not violate the notice requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. “The common-law rule that every person is presumed to know the law ‘has been applied ... in numerous cases construing criminal statutes,’ ” including prosecutions for possession of firearms. United States v. Hancock, 231 F.3d 557, 561 (9th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 989, 121 S.Ct. 1641, 149 L.Ed.2d 500 (2001) (quoting Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 199, 111 S.Ct. 604, 112 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991) (citations omitted)). Thus, Gallaher had constructive notice that a certificate and order of discharge does not “prohibit[ ] the use of an offender’s prior record for purposes of determining sentences for later offenses.” It follows that the district court did not err in counting Gallaher’s 1985 assault conviction as a predicate felony for purposes of enhancing his sentence under § 924(e).
Gallaher argues that this case is controlled by United States v. Palmer, 183 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir.1999). This court’s decision in Palmer is readily distinguishable, both factually and legally.
The defendant in Palmer was convicted in 1989 of possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Id. at 1015. In Palmer, federal agents subsequently executed a search warrant on the defendant’s home. Id. at 1016. Inside, agents discovered a .38 caliber pistol. Id. In a mobile home located on the defendant’s land, agents also found four handguns, one of which had been stolen, and twelve marijuana plants. Id. The defendant pled guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of § 922(g)(1). Id. The district court sentenced him to the statutory maximum. Id. He appealed from the court’s sentencing decision. Id. He argued before this court that the district court erred in considering his 1989 marijuana conviction in determining his base offense level because his civil rights had been restored. Id. We agreed and vacated the defendant’s sentence. Id. at 1017-18.
In calculating the defendant’s base offense level, the district court in Palmer relied in part on Application Note 10 to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2. Id. at 1017. Application Note 10 states that:
A number of jurisdictions have various procedures pursuant to which previous *797convictions may be set aside or the defendant may be pardoned for reasons unrelated to innocence or errors of law, e.g., in order to restore civil rights or to remove the stigma associated with a criminal conviction. Sentences resulting from such convictions are to be counted. However, expunged convictions are not counted. § 4A1.2(j).
Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 cmt. n.10).
We concluded in Palmer that Application Note 10 was in conflict with the rule contained in § 921(a)(20) that “[a]ny conviction ... for which a person ... has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter.” Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)). We held that “[b]ecause the relevant Sentencing Guidelines for firearms offenses require the counting of convictions where a defendant’s civil rights have been restored, and 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20) forbids such use, the statute controls.” Id. at 1018.
We did not indicate in Palmer the manner in which the state of Washington restored the defendant’s civil rights, nor did we set forth the text of the words used in the certificate, order, or pardon. Thus, one cannot discern from reading Palmer whether the restoration of civil rights was unqualified. In reciting the pertinent factual and procedural background, we merely stated that “the state of Washington had restored his civil rights for that conviction.” Id. at 1015. Furthermore, in Palmer, we did not cite Herron, decided four years earlier, nor did we discuss the effect of a restoration of civil rights by means of a certificate and order of discharge issued by a Washington court, and the continuing limitation on a defendant’s civil rights contained in § 9.94A.220(3). Here, by contrast, Gallaher received a certificate and order of discharge that informed him that the restoration of his civil rights was pursuant to § 9.94A.220(3) of the Revised Code of Washington. Section 9.94A.220(3) provides notice to a convicted felon that a certificate and order of discharge will not prevent the use of a prior conviction for sentencing purposes. Gal-laher had constructive notice that the civil rights lost by virtue of his 1985 conviction were not fully restored. Palmer does not support Gallaher’s contention that he was not provided with proper notice in the 1989 Certificate, that his 1985 conviction would be considered in enhancing his sentence if he subsequently committed crime.
I would affirm the district court’s decision. It did not err in using the 1985 conviction to enhance Gallaher’s sentence under the ACCA.

. This section has been recodified as § 9.94A.637 of the Revised Code of Washington. Wash. Rev.Code § 9.94A.637(3) (containing the language quoted herein).