678 F.3d 649
8th Cir.2012Background
- Miller was convicted in New York (2007) of scheme to defraud in the first degree under NY Penal Law § 190.65, involving fraudulent checks from his deceased father's account.
- In 2011, a federal grand jury charged Miller with two counts of possession of firearms and ammunition by a prohibited person under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Miller moved pre-trial to determine if his § 190.65 conviction qualifies for the § 921(a)(20)(A) business-practices exemption from § 922(g)(1).
- The § 921(a)(20)(A) exemption covers offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or similar business-regulation offenses.
- The district court denied the exemption and Miller pled guilty conditionally, preserving his right to appeal the exemption ruling.
- The district court’s ruling and Miller’s conviction under § 922(g)(1) are on appeal to the Eighth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §190.65 qualifies for the §921(a)(20)(A) exemption. | Miller argues §190.65 pertains to unfair trade practices. | Miller contends the statute falls within the exemption because it regulates business practices. | §190.65 does not pertain to unfair trade practices; not within the exemption. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Boaz, 558 F.3d 800 (8th Cir.2009) (questions of law; de novo review for §922(g) predicate)
- United States v. Stanko, 491 F.3d 408 (8th Cir.2007) ( §921(a)(20)(A) applicability requires regulation of business practices or similar)
- Beth Israel Med. Ctr. v. Smith, 576 F. Supp. 1061 (S.D.N.Y.1983) (scheme-to-defraud not limited to consumer fraud; not exempt)
- Dreher v. United States, 115 F.3d 330 (5th Cir.1997) (mail-fraud statutes not exempt under §921(a)(20)(A))
- United States v. Meldish, 722 F.2d 26 (2d Cir.1983) (mail fraud statutes do not require consumer/competition impact for exemption)