United States v. William W. Elliott, 128 F.3d 671 (8th Cir. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. William W. Elliott, 128 F.3d 671 (8th Cir. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Roberto Williams (ca8, 2025-03-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Roberto Williams
8th Cir. · 2025 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Bena, 664 F.3d at 1185-86 (8th Cir. 2011) (rejecting as an impermissible collateral attack a constitutional challenge to a predicate no-contact order in a § 922(g)(8) prosecution); United States v. Elliott, 128 F.3d 671, 672 (8th Cir. 1997) (applying Lewis to foreclose collateral attack in a § 922(g)(1) prosecution); United States v. Dorsch, 363 F.3d 784, 787-88 (8th Cir. 2004) (applying Lewis to bar challenge to predicate prior commitment element in a § 922(g)(4) prosecution).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Snell v. United States
D.C. · 2013 · confidence medium
Cf. United States v. Carmel, 548 F.3d 571, 579 (7th Cir.2008) (holding that defendant could have complied with statute prohibiting possession of unregistered firearms “simply by declining to possess ... illegal machine guns,” which could not be registered because they could not legally be possessed); United States v. Grier, 354 F.3d 210, 214-15 (3d Cir.2003) (same); United States v. Bournes, 339 F.3d 396, 399 (6th Cir.2003) (same); United States v. Elliott, 128 F.3d 671, 672 (8th Cir.1997) (same); Hunter v. United States, 73 F.3d 260, 261-62 (9th Cir.1996) (same); United States v. Ardoin, …
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Bena
8th Cir. · 2011 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. United States v. Elliott, 128 F.3d 671, 672 (8th Cir.1997) (per curiam) (applying Lewis to a conviction under § 922(g)(1)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Carmel
7th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
United States v. Grier, 354 F.3d 210, 214 (3d Cir.2003); United States v. Bournes, 339 F.3d 396, 399 (6th Cir.2003); United States v. Elliott, 128 F.3d 671, 672 (8th Cir.1997); Hunter v. United States, 73 F.3d 260, 261-62 (9th Cir.1996); United States v. Rivera, 58 F.3d 600, 601-02 (11th Cir.1995); United States v. Ardoin, 19 F.3d 177, 179-80 (5th Cir.1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Carmel, David
7th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
United States v. Grier, 354 F.3d 210, 214 (3d Cir. 2003); United States v. Bournes, 339 F.3d 396, 399 (6th Cir. 2003); United States v. Elliot, 128 F.3d 671, 672 (8th Cir. 1997); Hunter v. United States, 73 F.3d 260, 261-62 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Rivera, 58 F.3d 600, 601-02 (11th Cir. 1995); United States v. Ardoin, 19 F.3d 177, 179-80 (5th Cir. 1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Michael John Walker
8th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
United States v. Elliott, 128 F.3d 671, 672 (8th Cir. 1998).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Michael John Walker
8th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
United States v. Elliott, 128 F.3d 671, 672 (8th Cir.1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Grier
3rd Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
United States v. Elliott, 128 F.3d 671, 672 (8th Cir. 1997); Hunter, 73 F.3d at 261 - 62; United States v. Rivera, 58 F.3d 600, 601-02 (11th Cir. 1995); United States v. Ardoin, 19 F.3d 177, 179-80 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Ross, 9 F.3d 1182, 1193-94 (7th Cir. 1993), vacated on other grounds, 511 U.S. 1124 (1994); United States v. Jones, 976 F.2d 176, 182-83 (4th Cir. 1992).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Abdul Grier
3rd Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
United States v. Elliott, 128 F.3d 671, 672 (8th Cir.1997); Hunter, 73 F.3d at 261-62 ; United States v. Rivera, 58 F.3d 600, 601-02 (11th Cir.1995); United States v. Ardoin, 19 F.3d 177, 179-80 (5th Cir.1994); United States v. Ross, 9 F.3d 1182, 1193-94 (7th Cir.1993), vacated on other grounds, 511 U.S. 1124 , 114 S.Ct. 2129 , 128 L.Ed.2d 860 (1994); United States v. Jones, 976 F.2d 176, 182-83 (4th Cir.1992).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jason S. Mise (2×) also: Cited "see"
6th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
SeeUnited States v. Elliott, 128 F.3d 671, 672 (8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam); Hunter v. United States, 73 F.3d 260, 261-62 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam); United States v. Rivera, 58 F.3d 600, 601-02 (11th Cir. 1995); United States v. Ross, 9 F.3d 1182, 1192-94 (7th Cir. 1993), vacated on other grounds, 511 U.S. 1124 (1994). 40 In addition, the Eastern District of Michigan has recently rejected Dalton on several occasions.
cited Cited as authority (rule) David Hill v. John Ault
8th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 56, 60-65 (1980); United States v. Elliott, 128 F.3d 671, 672 (8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Earle R. Shepardson, III and Derek P. St. Don, David Maxwell
2d Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
Maxwell argues by analogy that § 5861(d) cannot be applied to him because the NFA requires a transferor to register a sawed-off shotgun prior to delivery to a transferee, and thus “it was a legal impossibility for this defendant to register the firearm and comply with the registration requirement.” Initially, we note that several circuit courts have rejected the Dalton analysis on the ground that it is possible for a defendant to comply with both § 5861(d)’s registration requirement and § 922(o)’s ban on machinegun possession “by simply refusing to possess the machinegun.” Unite…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Wolfe
E.D. Mich. · 1999 · confidence medium
Elliott, 128 F.3d at 672 (emphasis added).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Louis Pierre Village Center
8th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Walker, 428 F.3d 1165, 1172 (8th Cir.2005) (“[E]ven if a firearm cannot be registered, an individual could still comply with the law by not taking possession of it.”) (citing United States v. Elliott, 128 F.3d 671, 671 (8th Cir.1997) (per curiam)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1385 , 164 L.Ed.2d 90 (2006).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Louis Village Center
8th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Walker, 428 F.3d 1165, 1172 (8th Cir. 2005) (“[E]ven if a firearm cannot be registered, an individual could still comply with the law by not taking possession of it.”) (citing United States v. Elliot, 128 F.3d 671, 671 (8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam)), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1385 (2006).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Bournes
6th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Elliot, 128 F.3d 671, 672 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (upholding § 5861(d) conviction because In response, the government directs our attention to the § 922(o) and § 5861(d) are reconcilable); Hunter v. United Fourth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Jones, 976 F.2d States, 73 F.3d 260, 262 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (same); 176, 182-83 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 914 United States v. Ardoin, 19 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir. 1994) (1993).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Robert Bournes
6th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Elliot, 128 F.3d 671, 672 (8th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (upholding § 5861(d) conviction because § 922(o) and § 5861(d) are reconcilable); Hunter v. United States, 73 F.3d 260, 262 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (same); United States v. Ardoin, 19 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir.1994) (same), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 933 , 115 S.Ct. 327 , 130 L.Ed.2d 287 (1994); United States v. Ross, 9 F.3d 1182, 1194 (7th Cir.1993) (same), vacated on other grounds, 511 U.S. 1124 , 114 S.Ct. 2129 , 128 L.Ed.2d 860 (1994); see also United States v. Rivera, 58 F.3d 600, 601-02 (11th Cir.1995) (applying J…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Bournes
E.D. Mich. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Elliott, 128 F.3d 671, 672 (8th Cir.1997); United States v. Gresham, 118 F.3d 258, 263 (5th Cir.1997) (“If it was legally impossible for Gresham to register the pipe bomb and thereby comply with the NFA, he could avoid prosecution by not engaging in the illegal activity.”), ce rt. denied, 522 U.S. 1052 , 118 S.Ct. 702 , 139 L.Ed.2d 645 (1998); Hunter v. United States, 73 F.3d 260, 261-62 (9th Cir.1996); United States v. Rivera, 58 F.3d 600, 601-02 (11th Cir.1995).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
William W. ELLIOTT, Appellant
97-1945SI.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Apr 17, 1998.
128 F.3d 671
1997 WL 685409
Ted Harrison Engel, Des- Moines, IA, on the brief, for appellant., Robert C. Dopf, Des Moines, IA, on the brief, for appellee.
Fagg, Wollman, Arnold.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

After a conservation officer encountered William W. Elliott with two handguns in his van and local law enforcement officers seized an unregistered AK-47 fully automatic machinegun at Elliott’s home, a jury convicted Elliott on three counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and one count each of possessing an illegal firearm and failing to[*672] register a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 922(o)(l) (1994); 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) (1994). Elliott appeals Ms convictions and sentence. . We affirm.

In challenging Ms convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm, Elliott contends he has no valid underlying felony conviction for the purposes of § 922(g)(1). Elliott argues his counseled guilty plea to an earlier Arkansas felony charge is constitutionally infirm because the trial judge failed to comply with Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-44, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1711-12, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). The holdings of the United States Supreme Court, however, foreclose Elliott’s collateral attack on Ms earlier plea-based conviction. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 60-65, 100 S.Ct. 915, 918-20, 63 L.Ed.2d 198 (1980); see also Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485, 496-97, 114 S.Ct. 1732, 1738-39, 128 L.Ed.2d 517 (1994).

Because this Court gave Elliott permission to file a pro se brief, we now turn to the arguments in Elliott’s brief. See Hoggard v. Parkett, 29 F.3d 469, 472 (8th Cir. 1994) (pro se briefs not accepted when a party is represented by counsel). Elliott contends his § 5861(d) conviction for failure to register the machinegun violates due process. Elliott' argues § 5861(d) was implicitly repealed by the later-enacted '§ 922(o)(l), which proMbits possession of a machinegun. Because Elliott can comply with both statutes by simply refusing to possess the maehinegun, we agree with the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits that the statutes are reconcilable. See Hunter v. United States, 73 F.3d 260, 261-62 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Rivera, 58 F.3d 600, 601-02 (11th Cir.1995); United States v. Ardoin, 19 F.3d 177, 179-80 (5th Cir.1994); United States v. Ross, 9 F.3d 1182, 1193-94 (7th Cir.1993), vacated on other grounds, 511 U.S. 1124, 114 S.Ct. 2129, 128 L.Ed.2d 860 (1994); United States v. Jones, 976 F.2d 176, 182-83 (4th Cir.1992); but see United States v. Dalton, 960 F.2d 121, 123-24 (10th Cir. 1992). In sum, Elliott was fairly convicted under § 5861(d). Claiming he never fired the machinegun and did not know it was an automatic, Elliott also contends the Government failed to prove he knowingly possessed the weapon. Because Elliott possessed the machinegun and observed its characteristics, Elliott’s contention is foreclosed by our holding in United States v. Farrell, 69 F.3d 891, 894 (8th Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1283, 134 L.Ed.2d 228 (1996). We also reject Elliott’s challenge to his sentence. Our review shows the district court’s gmdeline sentence was correct. Finally, we have considered Elliott’s remaining contentions and find them without merit.

We affirm Elliott’s convictions and sentence.