United States v. Andre Michael Dubois
94 F.4th 1284
11th Cir.2024Background
- Andre Dubois was convicted for attempting to smuggle firearms out of the U.S., delivering firearms to a carrier without written notice, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, after trying to ship a box containing loaded and concealed firearms from Georgia to Dominica.
- The only contested issue at trial was whether Dubois knew he was shipping firearms; Dubois stipulated to being the customer and knowing he was a felon.
- The jury convicted Dubois on all counts. He was sentenced to 110 months (below guidelines) and fined $25,000.
- On appeal, Dubois challenged his conviction and sentence on constitutional and guideline interpretation grounds, relying in part on the Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen.
- The district court’s sentencing included enhancements for a prior Georgia marijuana conviction (viewed as a controlled substance offense) and for possessing a stolen firearm, and imposed a fine based on Dubois’s purported ability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Dubois’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bruen abrogates precedent upholding the federal felon-in-possession statute | Bruen’s expansion of Second Amendment rights should invalidate the felon-in-possession statute | Bruen did not overrule Supreme Court’s or circuit’s prior upholding of ban on felons possessing firearms | No abrogation; precedent controls, statute upheld |
| Sufficient evidence that Dubois knew he possessed a firearm | No direct evidence of knowledge; evidence showed he might have been duped or uninformed | Ample circumstantial evidence (false info, cash payment, active role) supports inference of knowledge | Circumstantial evidence sufficient to uphold verdict |
| Whether GA marijuana conviction is a “controlled substance offense” for federal sentencing | Statute was overbroad compared to current federal and state definitions (after hemp’s removal) | Apply state law as it existed at time of conviction, not at federal sentencing | State law at conviction controls; enhancement proper |
| Whether lack of mens rea for stolen-gun sentencing enhancement violates due process | Enhancement without proof of knowledge violates due process and relies on impermissible guideline commentary | Prior precedent: enhancement is strict liability and constitutional | Prior precedent controls; enhancement affirmed |
| Whether $25,000 fine was imposed in error | Court did not explain basis for fine; Dubois cannot afford it | Record shows Dubois could pay; Dubois failed to object specifically | No plain error; fine affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (recognizing an individual right to possess firearms but also upholding felon-in-possession bans as presumptively lawful)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (setting new standard for evaluating gun regulations under Second Amendment)
- United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2010) (upholding federal felon-in-possession ban under Second Amendment)
- McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816 (holding that sentencing enhancements use state law as it existed at time of prior conviction)
- United States v. Richardson, 8 F.3d 769 (11th Cir. 1993) (upholding strict liability approach for guideline enhancement regarding stolen firearms)