In United States v. McLellan, No. 18-13289 (May 6,
2020) (Boggs (CA6), Ed Carnes, Rosenbaum), the Court affirmed the
defendant’s gun convictions and sentences.
First, the Court concluded that an officer did not provide an
improper expert opinion when testifying that, based on his experience, there is
a relationship between guns and drugs, as this did not require any scientific
or specialized knowledge. The Court
also concluded that there was no Rule 403 violation when an officer testified
that less than a gram of meth was “sellable” because the defendant disputed that he knowingly possessed
the gun, he argued that it was for personal use, and other items associating
with selling drugs were found.
Second, the Court declined to address the defendant’s ACCA
challenge because the district court said it would have imposed the same
15-year sentence anyway—by running the 10-year minimum for one count
consecutive with a 5-year sentence for a second gun count. And that ultimate sentence was not
substantively unreasonable.
Third, and finally, the Court rejected the defendant’s Rehaif
challenge. Under recent circuit precedent,
the indictment’s failure to allege knowledge of status was not jurisdictional;
and, under plain error review, the defendant could not show his substantial
rights were affected because he had multiple prior felonies for which he served
many years in prison. Thus, there was
substantial evidence that the defendant knew he was a felon. For the same reason, the Court found no
reversible error with respect to his guilty plea on a second gun count, as there
was no evidence he would have gone to trial had he been properly advised.
