United States v. Carter
860 F.3d 39
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- In 1997 Carter pled guilty in Maine to misdemeanor assault against his girlfriend; in 2010 he was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) for possessing firearms after that domestic-violence conviction.
- Carter moved to dismiss, arguing Maine’s assault statute allows a reckless mens rea and recklessness does not satisfy the § 921(a)(33)(A) "use of physical force" element; he also preserved a sentencing challenge to the Guidelines application.
- The district court denied the pre-plea motions; Carter pleaded guilty with a conditional appeal reservation. A First Circuit panel vacated his conviction and remanded to develop the record after the Supreme Court decided Castleman.
- On remand the district court found no Shepard documents proving an intentional or knowing conviction and concluded the reckless prong did not qualify, dismissed the indictment, and the government appealed.
- The First Circuit (and later the Supreme Court) decided Voisine, holding reckless misdemeanor domestic violence can qualify under § 921(a)(33)(A); the panel reverses the district court, orders reinstatement of the conviction and sentence, and remands to resolve Carter’s preserved sentencing claim about the "sporting purposes or collection" exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prior misdemeanor assault based on recklessness qualifies as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A) | Gov: Reckless assault qualifies; supports firearm ban | Carter: Reckless mens rea does not constitute a "use" of physical force | Reversed district court; reckless assault qualifies in light of this circuit’s Voisine decision (and Supreme Court affirmation) |
| Whether district court properly dismissed indictment after panel vacated conviction to develop record | Carter: Vacatur and dismissal appropriate because record lacked Shepard documents showing an intentional/knowing prong | Gov: Vacatur did not resolve the legal question; dismissal was wrong after controlling authority | Reversed dismissal; indictment, conviction, and sentence reinstated |
| Whether Carter’s preserved sentencing challenge (sporting-purposes/collection exception) is moot | Gov: Completed imprisonment and intervening state custody moot the issue | Carter: Not moot; supervised release remains and Guidelines affect it | Not moot; remand to district court to supplement record and permit appeal on that issue |
| Proper remedy and mandate after intervening controlling authority clarified law | Carter: Should be placed where he would have been if district court had predicted Voisine and avoided reinstatement | Gov: Reinstate conviction and sentence to return parties to position as if panel had not vacated | Court orders reinstatement of April 23, 2012 judgment (noting imprisonment served), supplementation of record, and 14 days to appeal sentencing issue |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Voisine, 136 S. Ct. 2272 (2016) (Supreme Court holding reckless misdemeanor domestic violence can qualify under § 921(a)(33)(A))
- United States v. Castleman, 134 S. Ct. 1405 (2014) (interpreting "physical force" for § 921(a)(33)(A) as the force of a common-law battery)
- United States v. Booker, 644 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2011) (treatment of recklessness under prior panel precedent)
- United States v. Armstrong, 706 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013) (First Circuit panel decision later vacated and remanded by Supreme Court for reconsideration)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (permitting limited record materials to identify which statutory clause supported a prior conviction)
- United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415 (2009) (predicate conviction need not itself define the domestic relationship element for § 922(g)(9))