United States v. Ahmad McAdory
935 F.3d 838
9th Cir.2019Background
- McAdory was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of a firearm; indictment alleged three prior Washington convictions each “punishable by” >1 year: second-degree motor vehicle theft, residential burglary, and felony harassment.
- All three prior convictions were sentenced under Washington’s mandatory sentencing guidelines; each had a standard range of confinement of 0–90 or 0–30 days and no written findings supporting an upward departure; statutory maxima exceeded one year.
- McAdory pled guilty to § 922(g)(1), admitting his priors were punishable by >1 year, and was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment; he appealed (challenging conviction in light of intervening law).
- After McAdory’s opening brief, this court decided United States v. Valencia‑Mendoza, overruling prior Ninth Circuit precedent (Murillo) and holding that “punishable by” must consider the actual sentence exposure under a state’s mandatory scheme.
- Applying Valencia‑Mendoza, the panel held none of McAdory’s priors actually exposed him to >1 year under Washington’s scheme, so they were not § 922(g)(1) predicates; the conviction was reversed and the indictment dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prior Washington conviction is “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” for § 922(g)(1) purposes | The Government contended Murillo governs: statutory maximum (state statute) defines “punishable by,” so McAdory’s priors qualify | McAdory argued Valencia‑Mendoza controls: look to the actual sentencing exposure under Washington’s mandatory guidelines; his priors did not expose him to >1 year | Court held Valencia‑Mendoza binds: use actual sentence exposure under Washington’s scheme; McAdory’s priors did not qualify; conviction reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Valencia‑Mendoza, 912 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding “punishable by” requires consideration of actual sentencing exposure under a state’s mandatory sentencing scheme and overruling Murillo)
- United States v. Murillo, 422 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2005) (held prior convictions qualify if statutory maximum exceeds one year; overruled by Valencia‑Mendoza)
- Carachuri‑Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010) (Supreme Court precedent requiring consideration of sentencing factors when assessing whether an offense is “punishable by” more than one year)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (Supreme Court precedent reinforcing that sentencing consequences and statutory elements must be examined when determining immigration-related classification of offenses)