United States v. William Weiland

Defendant-Appellant William Weiland appeals his conviction and sentence for one count of possessing two firearms and ammunition as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1), and one count of forfeiture, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924 (d) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461 (c). Weiland argues: 1) that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(b) requires suppression of the firearms and ammunition seized during a search of his home because the warrant that authorized the search was not requested by a “federal law enforcement officer” or an “attorney for the government;” 2) that records of his four Oklahoma Second Degree Burglary convictions should be excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 802 and 901(a), 28 U.S.C. § 1738 , and the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment; 3) that the admission of four convictions to prove Weiland’s status as a felon when only one was required was unduly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403; 4) that the government did not establish that his convictions for Oklahoma Second Degree Burglary met the definition of “generic burglary” under Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 599 , 110 S.Ct. 2143 , 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990); 5) that Weiland’s…

dissenting.

Regretfully, I must dissent from the majority’s holding that the records of Wei-land’s prior convictions were admissible, because “the records were properly authenticated because the documents in the ‘penitentiary packet’ were self-authenticating public records admissible under Rules 902(2) and 902(4).” Maj. op. at 1073. Respectfully, I suggest that the record in this case cannot support the weight of that conclusion.

Richard E. Greene is the manager of the Offender Records Unit, Oklahoma Department of Corrections. In that capacity, he certified the records of Weiland’s prior convictions at issue in this case. In material part, his certification stated:

*1081 Although the foregoing certification would be sufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 902(2) and (4) if it were considered in isolation, as the majority does, the problem in this case is that stapled to Greene’s certification is a “facsimile transmittal,” which contradicts the material representations made in the certification. The majority, without any analysis whatsoever, dismisses this facsimile out of hand in one sentence: “The facsimile included in the ‘penitentiary packet,’ apparently from Greene’s…

420 F.3d 1062 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William WEILAND, Defendant-Appellant. No. 04-30091. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 8, 2005. Filed August 24, 2005. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Stephen R. Hormel, Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington and Idaho, Spokane, WA, for the defendant-appellant. James A. McDevitt, United States Attorney, Stephanie J. Lister, Assistant United States Attorney, Spokane, WA, for the plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-03-00070-EFS. Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. GOULD, Circuit Judge: 1 Defendant-Appellant William Weiland appeals his conviction and sentence for one count of possessing two firearms and ammunition as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1), and one count of forfeiture, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924 (d) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461 (c). Weiland argues: 1) that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(b) requires suppression of the firearms and ammunition…