United States v. Devon Jordan-Mcfeely
16-10456
| 9th Cir. | Jul 6, 2021Background
- Defendant Devon Carl Jordan-McFeely pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of multiple firearms.
- The indictment did not allege that he knew he was a felon when possessing the firearms, and the district court did not inform him (during the plea colloquy) that the government must prove knowledge of felon status (Rehaif-related issue).
- At plea/sentencing he admitted that he was a felon and that he was not permitted to possess or control a firearm.
- At sentencing the court applied enhancements based on two prior Nevada convictions: possession of ecstasy (NRS § 453.337) and robbery (NRS § 200.380); the court used the 2015 Sentencing Guidelines.
- Jordan-McFeely appealed, arguing (1) the indictment and plea colloquy failed to satisfy Rehaif, (2) his prior convictions were mischaracterized for sentencing, and (3) his sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Does omission of mens rea (knowledge of felon status) in the indictment deprive the court of jurisdiction? | Indictment inadequate because it failed to allege knowledge-of-status element. | Omission does not strip the court of jurisdiction. | Court: omission did not deprive district court of jurisdiction (citing Rehaif). |
| 2) Was Rehaif error in the plea colloquy reversible plain error? | Reversal required because court failed to advise that gov must prove knowledge of felon status. | Even if error, defendant cannot show reasonable probability he would have pleaded differently; he admitted felon status. | Court: defendant failed plain-error showing; no relief. |
| 3) Is the Nevada ecstasy-possession conviction a drug-trafficking offense for sentencing? | Argues it should not count as a drug-trafficking offense. | Government: NRS § 453.337 includes possession of specific controlled substances; ecstasy is Schedule I. | Court: conviction qualifies as a drug-trafficking offense; properly counted. |
| 4) Is the Nevada robbery conviction a crime of violence under the Guidelines, and should the 2016 Guidelines amendment apply? | Argues resentencing under 2016 Guidelines is required due to extortion definition change. | Government: NRS robbery categorically qualifies as crime of violence; defendant waived 2016-Guidelines claim. | Court: robbery is a crime of violence under the 2015 Guidelines; defendant waived 2016 claim; no plain error. |
| 5) Was the within-Guidelines sentence substantively unreasonable? | Sentence was excessive/unreasonable. | District court considered § 3553(a) factors and tailored sentence; within Guidelines. | Court: sentence not substantively unreasonable; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (clarified mens rea requirement for § 922(g) but noted it does not modify jurisdictional element)
- United States v. Arnt, 474 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2007) (indictment defects do not deprive court of power to adjudicate)
- United States v. Figueroa-Beltran, 995 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2021) (analysis of NRS § 453.337 and reviewing conviction record to determine controlled substance)
- United States v. Forrester, 616 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2010) (ecstasy is a Schedule I controlled substance)
- United States v. Harris, 572 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2009) (Nevada robbery convictions categorically qualify as crimes of violence)
- United States v. Kaplan, 836 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2016) (law on waiver by expressly asserting a right)
- United States v. Bankston, 901 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2018) (continued validity of pre-2016 extortion definition for robbery)
- United States v. Martinez-Lopez, 864 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2017) (affording deference to district court sentencing under § 3553)