Opinion
3:05 CR 145 AS.
March 27, 2007
MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER
At the outset, it needs to be said that this court well remembers United States v. Shoffner, 791 F.2d 586 (7th Cir. 1986), as well as United States v. Shoffner, 826 F.2d 619 (7th Cir. 1987). This court also well remembers that the factual setting in Shoffner was considerably more complicated than here. This court cannot gainsay that the Congress of the United States has constitutional authority to criminalize the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. There are certain conditions with regard to the nature of the felony involved as well as the requirements that the firearm move in interstate commerce. The United States basically has summarized the essence of this criminal case accurately. The evidence to support and sustain guilt is very substantial. It is generally somewhat easy to find something to talk about sentencing. Although in candor, this court doubts that there's very much to talk about here given the current state of the law. Even under the most liberal intendments of the Shoffner cases, this court is hard pressed to find a so-called substantial question that could delay the reporting time here.
It is not a pleasant decision but it is this court's firm belief that the reporting date in this case must now stand. See United States v. Eakin, 995 F.2d 740 (7th Cir. 1993). Also of particular note is the clear and convincing evidence standard in 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b). Although it is not pleasant, this court must stand by its reporting date of May 7, 2007 by noon, as reflected in this court's order of March 15, 2007. IT IS SO ORDERED.