Beecham v. United States, No. 93-445.
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | O'Connor |
| Citation | 511 U.S. 368 |
| Parties | BEECHAM v. UNITED STATES |
| Docket Number | No. 93-445. |
| Decision Date | 16 May 1994 |
511 U.S. 368
BEECHAM
v.
UNITED STATES
No. 93-445.
United States Supreme Court.
Argued March 21, 1994.
Decided May 16, 1994.*
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
O'Connor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Nathan Lewin argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Mathew S. Nosanchuk and R. Russell Stobbs.
Edward C. DuMont argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Assistant Attorney General Harris, Deputy Solicitor General Bryson, and John F. De Pue.
Justice O'Connor, delivered the opinion of the Court.
Today we construe three provisions of the federal firearms statutes:
"It shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted . . . of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year . . . to possess any firearm . . . ." 18 U. S. C. § 922(g).
"What constitutes a conviction . . . shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held." § 921(a)(20) (the choice-oflaw clause).
"Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction . . . ." Ibid. (the exemption clause).
The question before us is which jurisdiction's law is to be considered in determining whether a felon "has had civil rights restored" for a prior federal conviction.
I
Each of the petitioners was convicted of violating § 922(g). Beecham was convicted in Federal District Court in North Carolina, Jones in Federal District Court in West Virginia. Beecham's relevant prior conviction was a 1979 federal conviction in Tennessee, for violating 18 U. S. C. § 922(h). App. 11. Jones' prior convictions were two West Virginia state convictions, for breaking and entering and for forgery, and one 1971 federal conviction in Ohio for interstate transportation of a stolen automobile. Id., at 19-20.
Jones had gotten his civil rights restored by West Virginia, so his two West Virginia state convictions were not considered. Beecham claimed his civil rights had been restored by Tennessee, the State in which he had been convicted of his federal offense. The question presented to the District Courts was whether these restorations of civil rights by States could remove the disabilities imposed as a result of Beecham's and Jones' federal convictions.
In both cases, the District Courts concluded the answer was "yes," though for different reasons: In Beecham's case the court looked to the law of the State in which the earlier federal crime was committed (Tennessee); in Jones' case the court looked to the law of the State in which Jones lived when he committed the § 922(g) offense (West Virginia). The Fourth Circuit reversed both rulings, reasoning that state restoration of civil rights could not undo the federal disability flowing from a federal conviction. See 993 F. 2d 1131 (1993) (Jones' case) and 993 F. 2d 1539 (1993) (judgt. order in Beecham's case). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict this decision created with United States v. Edwards, 946 F. 2d 1347 (CA8 1991), and United States v. Geyler, 932 F. 2d 1330 (CA9 1991). 510 U. S. 975 (1993).
II
The question in these cases is how the choice-of-law clause and the exemption clause of § 921(a)(20) are related. If, as
We think the Fourth Circuit's reading is the better one. Throughout the statutory scheme, the inquiry is: Does the person have a qualifying conviction on his record? Section 922(g) imposes a disability on people who "have been convicted." The choice-of-law clause defines the rule for determining "what constitutes a conviction." The exemption clause says that a conviction for which a person has had civil rights restored "shall not be considered a conviction." Asking whether a person has had civil rights restored is thus just one step in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Rhynes, No. 97-4465 to 97-4470
...§ 921(a)(20). An exemption is provided for any conviction for which a person has had civil rights restored.1 In Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368, 114 S.Ct. 1669, 128 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), the Supreme Court adopted this circuit's holding and determined that the choice-of-law clause of § ......
-
U.S. v. Caron, Criminal No. 94-10040-WGY.
...... shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held." Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368, ___, 114 S.Ct. 1669, 1670, 128 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (referring to this clause as "the choice-of-law clause"); see Caron II, 77 F.3d at 6; United ......
-
Arnold v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 97-1781
...617 (1st Cir.1995). Of course, we focus on "the plain meaning of the whole statute, not of isolated sentences." Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368, 372, 114 S.Ct. 1669, 1671, 128 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), and we interpret the statute's words " 'in light of the purposes Congress sought to serv......
-
Curry v. U.S. Forest Service, No. Civ.A. 97-1081.
..."take" or "kill" migratory birds. The MBTA, however, should be read as a whole to derive its plain meaning. See Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368, 371-72, 114 S.Ct. 1669, 1671, 128 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). The MBTA is a criminal statute making it unlawful only for persons, associations, par......
-
GRAHAM COUNTY SOIL, WATER v. US ex rel. Wilson, No. 08-304.
...Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Environmental Protection, 547 U.S. 370, 126 S.Ct. 1843, 164 L.Ed.2d 625 (2006), and Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368, 114 S.Ct. 1669, 128 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), the Court of Appeals reasoned that "the placement of `administrative' squarely in the middle of a li......
-
US v. Rhynes, No. 97-4465 to 97-4470
...§ 921(a)(20). An exemption is provided for any conviction for which a person has had civil rights restored.1 In Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368, 114 S.Ct. 1669, 128 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), the Supreme Court adopted this circuit's holding and determined that the choice-of-law clause of § ......
-
U.S. v. Caron, Criminal No. 94-10040-WGY.
...... shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held." Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368, ___, 114 S.Ct. 1669, 1670, 128 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (referring to this clause as "the choice-of-law clause"); see Caron II, 77 F.3d at 6; United ......
-
Arnold v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 97-1781
...617 (1st Cir.1995). Of course, we focus on "the plain meaning of the whole statute, not of isolated sentences." Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368, 372, 114 S.Ct. 1669, 1671, 128 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), and we interpret the statute's words " 'in light of the purposes Congress sought to serv......
-
THE TRAJECTORY OF FEDERAL GUN CRIMES.
...504 U.S. 505 (1992); Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (1993); Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (1993); Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368 (1994); Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994); Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (1994); United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (199......