UNITED STATES v. STALLINGS (2021)

A jury convicted William Vance Stallings of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and the district court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Stallings challenges the district court's denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). Specifically, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction under Rehaif v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 204 L.Ed.2d 594 (2019), because the Government did not offer any evidence that he knew he was prohibited from possessing a firearm due to his prior felony convictions.

Stallings’ argument is without merit. See United States v. Tillmon, 954 F.3d 628, 637 (4th Cir. 2019) (reviewing denial of motion for judgment of acquittal de novo). In Rehaif, the Supreme Court held that, to convict a defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), the government “must show that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew he had the relevant status when he possessed it.” Rehaif, 139 S. Ct. at 2194. The Court did not hold that the government must also prove that the defendant knew he was prohibited from possessing a firearm based on his status. United States v. Moody, 2 F.4th 180, 195-99 (4th Cir. 2021).

Because Stallings’ sole argument on appeal is foreclosed by Moody, we affirm the district court's judgment. We remand the case, however, so that the district court may amend the judgment to correct a clerical error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. Although the indictment charged Stallings with possession of a firearm and ammunition, the jury convicted him of possessing a firearm only. Accordingly, the judgment should be revised so that ammunition is not referenced in the nature of the offense.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.