Sentencing Guidelines

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Larry E. Hatfield v. William P. Barr

Case No.: 18-2385

Officials: FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Sentencing Guidelines

A person “who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” is forbidden to possess a firearm. 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1). When holding in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008), that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects “the right of law‐ abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home”, the Court added that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons” (id. at 626). McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 786 (2010) (plurality opinion), “repeat[s Heller’s] assurances” that felon‐dispossession statutes are valid. Notwithstanding these statements, a district judge concluded in this suit that §922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment by preventing nonviolent felons from possessing guns. Hatfield v. Sessions, 322 F. Supp. 3d 885 (S.D. Ill. 2018). We recently held otherwise, see Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019), and conclude that Kanter governs this appeal as well.

Kanter was convicted of mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §1341, for bilking the Medicare program. He was sentenced to 366 days in prison. After release he contended that §922(g)(1) is invalid, as applied to him, because fraud is not a violent crime, and his conviction therefore does not portend misuse of fire‐ arms. We rejected that contention—not just because it appears to be inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s statements but also because fraud is a thought‐out crime that demonstrates disdain for the rights of others and disrespect for the law. Hatfield contends that his crime is less serious than Kanter’s because he was sentenced to three years’ probation rather than imprisonment. That’s true, but the kind of crime is the same: fraud to get federal benefits to which the applicant was not entitled. Hatfield applied for and received benefits from the Railroad Retirement Board, representing that he was unemployed. In fact he was still working. His false statements violated 18 U.S.C. §1001(a).

Hatfield, who has not tried to show that it is possible to say whether he, and others like him, are to a constitutionally dispositive degree less dangerous than other felons, must accept that the Supreme Court’s norm applies to him. He is not entitled to possess firearms.

Reversed

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.