context: . The Ninth Circuit has since switched sides. Presently, only the Eighth Circuit, which decided Barr, disagrees with the Seventh.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 130 F.3d 104, 108
citation_a.parenthetical: stating that six of the seven circuits that have addressed the issue have held that SS 5861(d
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Reyna, 130 F.3d 104, 108 (5th Cir.1997) (stating that six of the seven circuits that have addressed the issue have held that § 5861(d) requires proof that the defendant knows the characteristics of his sawed-off shotgun that bring it within the Act, with the 8th Circuit the only outlier); see also United States v. Michel, 446 F.3d 1122, 1129 (10th Cir.2006) (stating that “the government was required to present sufficient evidence that [the defendant] knew the firearm had a barrel length of less than eighteen inches”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 446 F.3d 1122, 1129
citation_b.parenthetical: stating that "the government was required to present sufficient evidence that [the defendant] knew the firearm had a barrel length of less than eighteen inches"
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Reyna, 130 F.3d 104, 108 (5th Cir.1997) (stating that six of the seven circuits that have addressed the issue have held that § 5861(d) requires proof that the defendant knows the characteristics of his sawed-off shotgun that bring it within the Act, with the 8th Circuit the only outlier); see also United States v. Michel, 446 F.3d 1122, 1129 (10th Cir.2006) (stating that “the government was required to present sufficient evidence that [the defendant] knew the firearm had a barrel length of less than eighteen inches”).