US v. Claybrook: Claybrook broke into a sporting goods store and stole several firearms, two of which were recovered from his home. At the same time, in his car, officers found six grams of methamphetamine. After a federal indictment for possession of stolen firearms was obtained and Claybrook was arrested, officers found marijuana in his home. At sentencing, his base offense level was increased due to the fact that he was a “prohibited person” at the time he possessed the guns because he was an unlawful user of drugs. Claybrook objected to that designation on a factual basis, but was overruled. The district court sentenced him to 70 months in prison, an upward variance.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Claybrook’s sentence. While taking note that the “legal contours of ‘unlawful user’ of a controlled substance are not well defined within the statute,” the court found the district court’s conclusion that Claybrook was one was not clearly erroneous. The record included not just the drugs recovered from Claybrook’s car and home, but his statements during the presentence interview that he “was addicted to marijuana and had been smoking the substance on a daily basis” until his arrest. The court also rejected a challenge to the vagueness of the unlawful user statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), noting that Claybrook’s conduct “falls squarely within the confines of the disputed statute.” Claybrook also argued that § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen. Applying plain error review, the court concluded that, at the very least, a contrary conclusion was not “plain” (without addressing first whether it was error).
No comments:
Post a Comment