Parrish v. Young

6 Citing cases

  1. Hill v. FCI Mcdowell Warden

    1:22-cv-00176 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 5, 2024)

    (reasoning that Rehaif was not a substantive change in law because “the same classes of people that were prohibited from possessing a firearm before Rehaif are still prohibited from possessing a firearm after Rehaif.”); Parrish v. Young, No. 5:20-00710, 2021 WL 3504643, at *4 (S.D. W.Va., July 13, 2021) (collecting district court cases within the Fourth Circuit holding that Rehaif was not a change in substantive law); United States v. Smart, No. 5:18-cr-00647, 2021 WL 5040467, at *2 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 29, 2021) (citing United States v. Jones, No. 3:16-CR-059, 2021 WL 325922, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 1, 2021)) (“Possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a felony was illegal both before and after Rehaif was decided.”). Under this first approach, Hill's claim is easily dismissed, because Rehaif claims summarily do not meet the second prong of In re Jones and thus cannot be brought in a § 2241 petition

  2. Sandlain v. Warden

    Civil Action 1:20-00424 (S.D.W. Va. Sep. 27, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    ; Parrish v. Young, Civil Action No. 5:20-00710, 2021 WL 3504643, at *4 (S.D. W.Va. July 13, 2021) (“Additionally, Rehaif did not change substantive law. Courts within the Fourth and Sixth Circuits have held that Rehaif did not change substantive law if the conduct for which the petitioner was convicted is still illegal and being a felon in possession of a firearm is still a valid criminal offense.”),

  3. Waller v. Warden

    Civil Action 1:19-00278 (S.D.W. Va. Sep. 21, 2022)

    ; Parrish v. Young, Civil Action No. 5:20-00710, 2021 WL 3504643, at *4 (S.D. W.Va. July 13, 2021) (“Additionally, Rehaif did not change substantive law.

  4. Jackson v. Warden, FCI McDowell

    Civil Action 1:19-00149 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 31, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Courts within the Sixth Circuit have concluded that Rehaif did not change the substantive law such that the conduct for which Hill was convicted is no longer illegal. See Parrish v. Young, Civil Action No. 5:20-00710, 2021 WL 3504643, at *4 (S.D. W.Va. July 13, 2021) (“Additionally, Rehaif did not change substantive law. Courts within the Fourth and Sixth Circuits have held that Rehaif did not change substantive law if the conduct for which the petitioner was convicted is still illegal and being a felon in possession of a firearm is still a valid criminal offense.”), proposed findings and recommendation adopted by 2021 WL 3503228 (S.D. W.Va. Aug. 9, 2021); Andrew v. Barnes, Case No. 5:20-cv-02233-DCC, 2021 WL 1986647, at *2 (D.S.C. May 18, 2021) (“Petitioner cannot meet the Jones test because he cannot show as a matter of law that Rehaif rendered his conduct not criminal.

  5. Hall v. Hudgins

    Civil Action 3:19-CV-134 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 2, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    (holding that “to the extent Miller challenges his sentence under Wheeler, the Supreme Court did not indicate that Rehaif was retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review”); Williams v. United States, No. 3:17-cr-00241, 2019 WL 6499577, at *2 (W.D. N.C. Dec. 3, 2019) (“[T]he Supreme Court did not make Rehaif retroactive to cases on collateral review.”); Waters v. United States, No. 4:15-cr-158, 2019 WL 3495998, at *5 (D.S.C. Aug. 1, 2019) (denying motion to appoint counsel to present a Rehaif claim in part because “there is no indication that the Supreme Court has made the holding in Rehaif retroactively applicable to invalidate an otherwise final conviction under § 922(g)”). Additionally, courts within the Fourth Circuit have held that Rehaif did not change substantive law because the underlying conduct remains illegal. Parrish v. Young, No. 5:20-00710, 2021 WL 3504643, at *4 (S.D. W.Va. July 13, 2021) (“Rehaif did not change substantive law.

  6. Hill v. Warden, FCI McDowell

    Civil Action 1:20-00404 (S.D.W. Va. Sep. 28, 2021)

    In so doing, he fails to acknowledge that courts within the Sixth Circuit have concluded that Rehaif did not change the substantive law such that the conduct for which Hill was convicted is no longer illegal. See Parrish v. Young, Civil Action No. 5:20-00710, 2021 WL 3504643, at *4 (S.D. W.Va. July 13, 2021) (“Additionally, Rehaif did not change substantive law. Courts within the Fourth and Sixth Circuits have held that Rehaif did not change substantive law if the conduct for which the petitioner was convicted is still illegal and being a felon in possession of a firearm is still a valid criminal offense.”),