United States v. Sanchez
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9185
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Defendant Rolando Sanchez was convicted at a bench trial of possession of a firearm by a prohibited possessor under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) based on a Tucson City Court no-contact order.
- The superseding indictment tied § 922(g)(8) to Sanchez’s January 29, 2009 domestic violence conviction and probation terms.
- The no-contact order prohibited any contact with the victim and her family, but did not expressly prohibit the use or threat of physical force.
- The district court denied Sanchez’s motion for acquittal, ruling that the no-contact order could satisfy § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii).
- Sanchez appealed, arguing the order lacked explicit prohibitions on force as required by § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii).
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that a § 922(g)(8) predicate order must contain explicit terms substantially similar in meaning to § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a no-contact court order satisfies § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii). | Sanchez | Sanchez | The district court erred; no-contact order without explicit force prohibition does not satisfy § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. DuBose, 598 F.3d 726 (11th Cir. 2010) (explicit terms similar to bodily-injury prohibition)
- United States v. Coccia, 446 F.3d 233 (1st Cir. 2006) (no-contact orders with explicit prohibitions satisfy § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii))
- United States v. Bostic, 168 F.3d 718 (4th Cir. 1999) (explicit prohibitions in court orders satisfy § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii))