(suggesting our focus should be on “whether the crime and not the particular defendant is punishable by more than a year imprisonment”). Jones examined a conviction and sentence under the North Carolina sentencing scheme. 195 F.3d at 206. Like Kansas, North Carolina employed a grid to determine a defendant’s presumptive sentence. Id. Even though Jones faced a maximum penalty of twelve months’ imprisonment, the Class H crime for which he was convicted carried a maximum sentence of thirty months’ imprisonment. Id. at 206-07. The court concluded the statutory maximum for the crime of conviction was thirty months, and was therefore “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Id. at 207; see also United States v. Murillo, 422 F.3d 1152, 1155 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Hill ignores the structure of § 922(g)(1) and
holding statutory error harmless where district court imposed the highest available sentence under guidelines range and considered sentencing to the statutory maximum recognizing a claim that the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum holding that for purposes of apprendi the statutory maximum is the maximum sentence that may be imposed based solely on the jurys findings holding that a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release will be upheld where 1 the district court considered the applicable policy statements 2 the sentence is within the statutory maximum and 3 the sentence is reasonable holding statutory maximum for prior conviction is the potential maximum sentence defined by the applicable state criminal statute not the maximum sentence which could have been imposed against the particular defendant  according to the states sentencing guidelines