Whether the existence of a circuit split, rather than a later reversal or grant of certiorari, is the controlling factor in determining whether a defendant received fair warning under the Due Process Clause.

The other side of the split

Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.

• DiscussedDriscoll970 F.2d 1480
• Discussed · 8th Cir.United States v. Ellis949 F.2d 952

  “Ellis, 949 F.2d 952 , 955 (8th Cir.1991) (absent full restoration of firearms rights, civil rights not restored at all); United States v.” — United States v. Qualls, acknowledging the split

• Discussed · 9th Cir.United States v. Dahms938 F.2d 131

  “Dahms, 938 F.2d 131 , 134-35 (9th Cir.1991) (felon has right to carry under federal law any weapon that is allowed under state law); Burns, 934 F.2d at 1160 (all-or-nothing rule); see also Estrella, 104 F.3d at 7-9 (all-or-nothing rule); United States v.” — United States v. Qualls, acknowledging the split

• DiscussedBurns934 F.2d 1160

  “Dahms, 938 F.2d 131 , 134-35 (9th Cir.1991) (felon has right to carry under federal law any weapon that is allowed under state law); Burns, 934 F.2d at 1160 (all-or-nothing rule); see also Estrella, 104 F.3d at 7-9 (all-or-nothing rule); United States v.” — United States v. Qualls, acknowledging the split

• DiscussedEstrella104 F.3d 7

  “Dahms, 938 F.2d 131 , 134-35 (9th Cir.1991) (felon has right to carry under federal law any weapon that is allowed under state law); Burns, 934 F.2d at 1160 (all-or-nothing rule); see also Estrella, 104 F.3d at 7-9 (all-or-nothing rule); United States v.” — United States v. Qualls, acknowledging the split

• Discussed · 7th Cir.United States v. Lee72 F.3d 55
• Discussed · 4th Cir.United States v. Tomlinson67 F.3d 508

  “Tomlinson, 67 F.3d 508 , 513 (4th Cir.1995) (felon has right to carry under federal law any weapon that is allowed under state law).” — United States v. Qualls, acknowledging the split

• Declined to follow · 9th Cir.United States v. Albertini830 F.2d 985

  “In Albertini, we stated that an individual could rely on "the latest controlling court opinion ...” — United States v. Qualls, acknowledging the split

What the split turns on

Anchor precedents:

United States v. Rodgers466 U.S. 475 ·

Caron v. United States524 U.S. 308

Doctrines & tests:

all-or-nothing rule ·

Caron rule