United States v. Butler
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5806
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Butler pled guilty to Count Two, possession of firearms by a dishonorable dischargee under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(6).
- Plea agreement dismissed other counts and preserved appeal on whether § 922(g) requires knowledge of prohibited status.
- Air Force court-martial convicted Butler and dishonorably discharged him; DD-214 issued March 6, 2009, but not delivered to him.
- Butler was unaware of the discharge when he possessed firearms in August 2009, after the DD-214 issue was mishandled.
- Court applied de novo review to the factual basis for the guilty plea and held that discharge was effective when DD-214 was ready for delivery and Butler had notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Butler's discharge was effective at the offense time. | Butler argues he was not discharged at offense time due to lack of delivery. | Butler asserts no discharge delivery and thus no status for § 922(g)(6). | Discharge effective when DD-214 ready for delivery and notice given. |
| Whether § 922(g)(6) requires knowledge of prohibited status. | Government argues no knowledge of status required; precedent from § 922(g)(1) applies. | Butler contends knowledge of discharge status is required. | No knowledge requirement for § 922(g)(6); no mens rea for prohibited status. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dancy, 861 F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1988) (no knowledge of prohibited status required under § 922(g) after amendment and historical context)
- United States v. Rose, 587 F.3d 695 (5th Cir. 2009) (rejects Flores-Figueroa-based knowledge requirement for § 922(g))
- Hamon v. United States, 10 Cl. Ct. 681 (Cl. Ct. 1986) (discharge can occur without delivery when documents ready and status understood)
- Earl v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 36 (Fed. Cl. 1996) (discharge occurs when discharge is ordered and pay terminated; delivery not always necessary)
- United States v. King, 27 M.J. 327 (C.M.A. 1989) (delivery of discharge certificate signals completion of discharge process)
- United States v. Howard, 20 M.J. 353 (C.M.A. 1985) (discharge is effective upon delivery of the discharge certificate)