United States v. Terrance Rush, No. 19-2892 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Erickson, Wollman and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The evidence was sufficient to support Rush's guilty plea for being a felon in possession of a firearm; the court would not address the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel as the claim should be brought in a Section 2255 action.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2892 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Terrance Dion Rush lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: November 17, 2020 Filed: November 20, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before ERICKSON, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Terrence Rush appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense and to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and the district court1 imposed sentence. He 1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. contends that there was insufficient evidence supporting his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. He also challenges his sentence and asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We conclude that there was a sufficient factual basis for Rush’s guilty plea to the felon-in-possession charge. See United States v. Christenson, 653 F.3d 697, 700 (8th Cir. 2011) (reviewing challenge to unobjected-to factual basis for guilty plea for plain error); United States v. Garcia-Hernandez, 803 F.3d 994, 997 (8th Cir. 2015) (mens rea requirement does not apply to interstate-commerce element of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)); see also Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2196 (2019) (presumption in favor of scienter requirement does not apply to jurisdictional elements). In addition, we find no merit to Rush’s sentencing challenge, and we decline to address any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in this direct appeal. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2002) (in general, ineffective-assistance claim is not cognizable on direct appeal; such claim is properly raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
