United States v. Jason Nebinger
987 F.3d 734
| 7th Cir. | 2021Background
- Jason Nebinger pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); Probation treated him as an Armed Career Criminal (ACCA) based on prior Illinois convictions (residential burglary, drug possession with intent to deliver, aggravated battery), which raised his exposure from a 10-year maximum to a 15-year mandatory minimum.
- Nebinger objected only to using his Illinois residential-burglary conviction as an ACCA predicate; the district court agreed and initially sentenced him to 10 years.
- The government appealed; the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded in light of Smith v. United States, holding Illinois residential burglary corresponded to generic burglary, and the district court resentenced Nebinger to the 15-year ACCA minimum.
- On this appeal Nebinger argued (1) his guilty plea should be vacated under Rehaif because the indictment did not allege he knew he was a felon, and (2) his Illinois residential-burglary and drug convictions are not ACCA predicates.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction, finding no plain-error prejudice under Rehaif (Nebinger admitted multiple prior felonies and would not likely have gone to trial), but vacated the sentence and remanded because, under Illinois Supreme Court guidance and subsequent Seventh Circuit precedent, Illinois residential burglary cannot serve as a categorical ACCA predicate due to the limited-authority doctrine.
- The court declined to reach Nebinger’s challenge to the Illinois drug conviction as an ACCA predicate because he forfeited/waived that argument.
Issues
| Issue | Nebinger's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nebinger’s guilty plea must be vacated under Rehaif (knowledge-of-status element) | Plea was unknowing because indictment and factual basis lacked an allegation that he knew he was a felon | Any Rehaif error was not plain-prejudicial; Nebinger admitted multiple prior felonies so he knew his status | Conviction affirmed; Rehaif error, if any, did not affect substantial rights — no reasonable probability he would have proceeded to trial |
| Whether Illinois residential burglary qualifies as a categorical ACCA violent felony | Illinois statute is overbroad: (a) may cover places beyond buildings/structures; (b) does not require breaking/entering | Smith and Stitt support treating Illinois residential burglary as corresponding to generic burglary | Sentence vacated and remanded: Illinois residential burglary does not qualify as an ACCA predicate because the limited-authority doctrine makes the statute broader than generic burglary |
| Whether Nebinger’s Illinois drug conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate | Illinois statute criminalizes broader analogues/isomers than federal law, so it is not a categorical match | Argument was waived/forfeited; it could have been raised earlier and was not preserved | Court refused to reach the merits due to forfeiture/waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (U.S. 2019) (holding government must prove defendant knew he belonged to a §922(g) category)
- United States v. Maez, 960 F.3d 949 (7th Cir. 2020) (interpreting Rehaif knowledge element as knowledge of felon status)
- United States v. Williams, 946 F.3d 968 (7th Cir. 2020) (plain-error framework applied to Rehaif challenges to guilty pleas)
- United States v. Dowthard, 948 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2020) (Rehaif plain-error analysis)
- Smith v. United States, 877 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2017) (held Illinois residential-burglary statute corresponds to generic burglary for ACCA purposes)
- Stitt v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 399 (U.S. 2018) (clarified structures/vehicles adapted for overnight accommodation qualify as generic burglary)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1990) (established categorical approach to burglary for ACCA)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (U.S. 2013) (limited the use of means-to-elements in categorical approach)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (U.S. 2016) (further clarified elements-vs.-means line in categorical analysis)
- Dawkins v. United States, 809 F.3d 953 (7th Cir. 2016) (held Illinois unlawful entry is the practical equivalent of breaking-and-entering)
- United States v. Glispie, 943 F.3d 358 (7th Cir. 2019) (certified question to Illinois Supreme Court; later led to holding that Illinois residential burglary is not a categorical match)
- United States v. Ruth, 966 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2020) (applied categorical approach to Illinois cocaine statute)
- United States v. Elder, 900 F.3d 491 (7th Cir. 2018) (applied categorical approach to state drug convictions)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (U.S. 2016) (plain-error test factors)