United States v. Antoine Wallace
991 F.3d 810
| 7th Cir. | 2021Background
- Late evening Oct. 14, 2018: Officer Kristensen, responding to a 911 call in Champaign, Illinois, saw a black male in the backyard who squared up and pointed a silver handgun at him.
- Kristensen took cover, radioed a description, pursued the subject, and within ~90 seconds officers arrested Antoine Wallace wearing the same clothing; no gun was found on his person.
- Officers searched the area and recovered a fully loaded silver handgun on a nearby house gutter; Kristensen testified it resembled the gun he saw and tied it to Wallace by description and timing.
- A jury convicted Wallace of being a felon in possession of a firearm; the district court sentenced him to 78 months’ imprisonment.
- On appeal Wallace challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence that he possessed the gun; (2) two criminal-history points based on a 2015 Illinois fleeing conviction (alleging he did not actually serve time); and (3) an eight-level enhancement based on a 2004 Illinois drug conviction (arguing the statute was broader than the federal definition of a controlled-substance offense).
Issues
| Issue | Wallace's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Wallace knowingly possessed a firearm | Kristensen’s testimony was unreliable (body-cam blurry, misstated timing of announcement, brief sighting) so no rational juror could find possession beyond a reasonable doubt | Kristensen testified he saw Wallace point a gun, described clothing/timing, and the recovered gun matched; credibility and video were for the jury | Affirmed — viewing evidence in government’s favor, a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Criminal-history points for 2015 fleeing conviction (136-day sentence) | The prior sentence shouldn’t count because Wallace did not actually serve time (he bonded out; the docket shows time credited to another case) | The state judgment reflects a 136-day sentence with credit; collateral attack on state judgment unavailable; guidelines count the sentence pronounced | Affirmed — district court did not err in adding two points; Wallace’s attack on the state judgment is an improper collateral attack |
| Eight-level enhancement under §2K2.1(a)(4)(A) for 2004 Illinois drug conviction | Illinois statute is broader than the federal CSA (includes positional isomers/analogs), so it is not a qualifying "controlled substance offense" under the categorical approach | The guidelines define "controlled substance offense" by its own (federal-or-state) definition; Seventh Circuit precedent (Ruth) reads that definition broadly to include the Illinois conviction | Affirmed — under controlling Seventh Circuit precedent the Illinois conviction qualifies as a controlled-substance offense for guidelines purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Garcia, 919 F.3d 489 (7th Cir. 2019) (standard of review for Rule 29 sufficiency review)
- United States v. Carrillo, 435 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2006) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility)
- Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (1994) (limits collateral attack on prior convictions used to enhance federal sentence)
- United States v. Staples, 202 F.3d 992 (7th Cir. 2000) (counting prior sentence despite credit for time served on unrelated matter)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (categorical approach to determining predicate offenses)
- United States v. Ruth, 966 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2020) (guidelines’ definition of "controlled substance" uses its ordinary meaning and includes state-law offenses like Illinois’s statute)
- United States v. Nebinger, 987 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2021) (related Seventh Circuit decision addressing similar issues)
- United States v. Hall, 531 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 2008) (contrary circuit authority on whether credited sentences count for criminal-history points)
- United States v. Butler, 229 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2000) (contrary circuit authority on counting prior sentences)
- McNair v. United States, 962 F.3d 367 (7th Cir. 2020) (discussing limits on collateral attacks to challenge prior convictions)
- Ryan v. United States, 214 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2000) (same)