Evans v. Zych
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14222
6th Cir.2011Background
- Evans pleaded guilty to unlawful receipt and possession of an unregistered firearm (5861(d)) and two counts of unlawful transfer of a firearm (5861(e)).
- He was sentenced in 2006 to 37 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
- Evans challenged the BOP’s classification of his offenses as crimes of violence for §4042(b) notification purposes under §924(c)(3).
- District court held that 5861 possession and transfer convictions qualify as crimes of violence under §924(c)(3).
- Evans argued the §4042(b) notification requirement should not apply to his §5861(d)/(e) convictions under Leocal v. Ashcroft.
- After filing, Evans was released to supervision; the district court also denied his claim to access certain legal documents, which he later challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are §5861(d) and (e) crimes of violence under §924(c)(3)? | Evans—no; possession/transfer of unregistered firearms do not require force. | Government—yes; policy linking unregistered firearms to violence supports classification as crimes of violence. | Not crimes of violence under §924(c)(3). |
| What framework applies to whether §5861(d)/(e) are crimes of violence—the Leocal categorical approach? | Evans—categorical statutory language controls; mere possession/transfer not inherently violent. | Government—lower court relied on analogous reasoning; policy-based approach may apply. | Leocal categorical approach applied; §5861(d)/(e) do not involve use or risk of force in the course of committing the offense. |
| Does the decision to classify §5861(d)/(e) as crimes of violence become moot after Evans's release and supervision? | Evans—challenge remains during supervised release; case not moot. | Government—case moot since custody ended. | Not moot with respect to §4042(b) notification; BOP retains authority; issue viable on appeal. |
| Is Evans entitled to vacatur regarding the district court's ruling on access to legal documents? | Vacatur unnecessary if moot, or to avoid prejudice in future actions. | No relief beyond current mootness. | Vacatur granted for the legal documents issue to avoid prejudice in future litigation. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jennings, 195 F.3d 795 (5th Cir. 1999) (possession of an unregistered weapon may be a crime of violence under §924(c)(3))
- United States v. Owens, 447 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir. 2006) (possession of an unregistered firearm analyzed under Guidelines §4B1.2(a))
- United States v. Serafin, 562 F.3d 1105 (10th Cir. 2009) (possession of an unregistered weapon not a crime of violence under §924(c)(3) under Leocal framework)
- Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) (definition of crime of violence hinges on elements and nature; not all possessory offenses qualify)
- United States v. Amos, 501 F.3d 524 (6th Cir. 2007) (possession offenses and violence under ACCA compared; not all possessory offenses are violent)
- Orr v. Hawk, 156 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 1998) (possession offenses not categorically crimes of violence for early release)
- United States v. Hawkins, 554 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2009) (distinguishes guidelines language from ACCA; possession context matters)
- United States v. Sawyers, 409 F.3d 732 (6th Cir. 2005) (notes the relationship between §924(c) and §16 definitions of crime of violence)