United States v. Edmund Miller Goodell

Good Law
93 Daily Journal DAR 4297·990 F.2d 497·1993 WL 96504·1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 6870·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2527
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 5, 199392-30265California2,104 words

Opinion

Opinion

Tang, J.

Defendant Edmund Miller Goodell appeals from his sentence after pleading guilty to being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g). Specifically, Goodell objects to the two-point sentencing enhancement for possession of a stolen firearm because he had no knowledge that the weapon was stolen. Goodell argues that the enhancement violates due process because punishment traditionally requires mens rea and strict liability in this instance is not rationally related to any government goal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm.

DISCUSSION

Goodell’s plea agreement specified that one of the weapons Goodell possessed was stolen. The district court applied a two-point enhancement for possession of a stolen weapon pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2) (1990) , which requires an increase “[i]f the firearm was stolen, or had an altered or obliterated serial number.” Goodell objected to the enhancement, contending that he did not know the gun was stolen. The government admits that there is no evidence that Goodell knew the gun was stolen.

I.

The plain language of § 2K2.1(b)(2) does not require scienter:

United States v. Peoples, 904…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.