# United States v. David D. Schoolcraft

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · July 18, 1989 · 879 F.2d 64

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479248

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America v. David D. SCHOOLCRAFT, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** July 18, 1989
- **Citations:** 879 F.2d 64; 1989 WL 66566
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Scirica
- **Judges:** Hutchinson, Scirica, Nygaard
- **Cited by:** 129 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479248

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479248. Public record. Not legal advice.