965 F.3d 475
6th Cir.2020Background
- June 2018 shooting outside Our Space Lounge in Lorain, Ohio; victim (McCollough) shot and a Smith & Wesson .45 was recovered under a truck near the scene.
- A separate magazine with fifteen .45 rounds and additional .45 ammunition were recovered from a black Nissan at the scene; casings at scene came from a different .45.
- Forensics connected Raymore to the evidence: Raymore’s DNA was a major contributor on the gun exterior, the gun magazine, gloves found at the scene, and the iPhone recovered from the Nissan; gloves had gunshot-residue; iPhone data linked to GregoryRaymore814 and texts about .45 shells.
- Multiple officers and video placed Raymore near the gun after the shooting and lingering after being told to leave; sister (Pansy) linked to the Nissan but gave inconsistent testimony.
- Raymore was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)/924(a)(2) (felon in possession), convicted by a jury, and received an enhanced Guidelines range under USSG § 4B1.1/4B1.2 based on prior Ohio assault and aggravated robbery convictions; he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (Rule 29) | Gov’t: DNA, iPhone, eyewitnesses, GSR, and inferences support constructive possession and knowledge of status | Raymore: evidence insufficient to prove constructive or actual possession | Affirmed — under manifest-miscarriage standard evidence was not "devoid"; jury could rationally infer possession and status |
| Indictment / jury instructions post‑Rehaif (mens rea for status) | Gov’t: Rehaif error subject to plain‑error review; Raymore’s stipulation to prior felony and other evidence show no substantial-rights prejudice | Raymore: indictment failed to allege knowledge of felon status and jury was told scienter not required, violating Rehaif | Plain‑error review; although indictment omitted Rehaif element, error did not affect substantial rights given stipulation, prior similar convictions, and evidence; conviction affirmed |
| Sentencing enhancement under USSG §4B1.2 (crime‑of‑violence predicates) | Gov’t: prior Ohio assault (§2903.13(A)) and aggravated robbery (§2911.01(A)(1)) qualify as crimes of violence under the elements clause; circuit precedent controls | Raymore: Burris/Havis show Ohio statutes can be broader or involve attempt crimes, so enhancement improper | De novo review; circuit precedent (Evans, Patterson, Johnson) controls — both prior Ohio convictions qualify as crimes of violence; enhancement affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (Supreme Court requires Government prove defendant knew both possession and status under §922(g))
- United States v. Hobbs, 953 F.3d 853 (6th Cir. 2020) (Rehaif mens‑rea requirement not jurisdictional)
- United States v. Burris, 912 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. en banc 2019) (analyzing divisibility and scope of Ohio assault statutes for violent‑felony predicates)
- United States v. Evans, 699 F.3d 858 (6th Cir. 2012) (Ohio assault §2903.13(A) qualifies as a crime of violence under Guidelines elements clause)
- United States v. Patterson, 853 F.3d 298 (6th Cir. 2017) (Ohio aggravated robbery §2911.01(A)(1) qualifies as a violent felony under elements clause)
- United States v. Havis, 927 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. en banc 2019) (limits use of Guidelines commentary to expand offenses; addresses attempt‑crime treatment)
- United States v. Conley, [citation="802 F. App'x 919"] (6th Cir. 2020) (noting a stipulation to a prior felony is strongly suggestive of knowledge of status)
- United States v. Grubbs, 506 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2007) (framework for actual vs. constructive possession)