Court Opinion

ID: 9489002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:02:06.176792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:14.538834
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Circuit Judge, concurring and dissenting.
I concur in Sections I through III of the majority’s opinion. I dissent with respect to Section IV. At the time of McKinney’s conviction, sentence, and the filing of his appeal, the Supreme Court had not yet decided Bailey v. United States, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995); thus, it would have been useless for McKinney to challenge the correctness of our previous cases, object to the jury’s instructions, and to argue that his conviction was in any way infirm. As soon as Bailey was decided and before this court acted on his direct appeal, he argued that this court should apply Bailey. I agree that we should. The majority concludes that McKinney’s argument based on Bailey was waived. It has always been my understanding that a waiver must be knowing and intentional. I am at a loss to understand how a waiver can be found here.
In my view, the proper course for this court to take would be to remand to the district court and permit it to determine whether in light of Bailey, McKinney’s conviction and sentence can be sustained.