explaining that a “misdemeanor punishable [by] up to seven years in prison” was “not a misdemeanor subject to a sentence of two years or less”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that a “misdemeanor punishable [by] up to seven years in prison” was “not a misdemeanor subject to a sentence of two years or less”
- finding that the unambiguous language of section 924(e)(1) does not require that “the ‘convictions’ ... occur before the commission of the crime underlying a subsequent predicate conviction”
- noting that the proper standard of review for vindictive prosecution is unsettled in the Ninth Circuit
- finding that the defendant did not fall within § 921(a)(20)(B)’s exclusion because his prior convictions had a maximum sentences of seven years and twenty years
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SCIRICA, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
For the reasons stated by Chief Judge Gibbons in United States v. Balascsak, 873 F.2d 673, 678-84 (3d Cir.1989) (in banc), I respectfully dissent from Parts IY and V of the court’s opinion. 1 I would affirm the judgment of conviction, vacate the judgment of sentence, and remand for resen-tencing.
. I join in parts I, II, and III of the court’s opinion.