United States v. Charles Cannon, 750 F.3d 492

Defendants Cannon, Kerstetter, and McLaughlin were convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(1) for willfully causing bodily injury to Yondel Johnson because of his race.
Johnson, an African-American, was assaulted after a prelude including racist remarks and visible white-supremacist tattoos among defendants.
Trial evidence included a racial epithet use, tattoos, and witnesses who described a racially biased confrontation.
The defense challenged § 249(a)(1)’s validity under the Thirteenth Amendment and the sufficiency of evidence linking the injuries to racial motivation.
A gang-tattoo expert explained terms like “wood” as signals of white-supremacy; Johnson testified to being called a “n—er” before the fight.
The district court denied challenges to the indictment and the motions for acquittal; the jury returned guilty verdicts; sentences were imposed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of § 249(a)(1) under Thirteenth Amendment § 2	Plaintiff asserts § 249(a)(1) valid under § 2; Jones controls.	Defendants contend Flores/Shelby County limit Congress’s power; statute overly broad.	Constitutional under Jones; rational basis review sustained.
Sufficiency of evidence linking motive to race	Evidence shows racial epithets, tattoos, and facially racist conduct.	No explicit plan or premeditation shown; challenge to racially motivated evidence.	Sufficient evidence supports motive and bodily injury element.
Effect of premeditation requirement on § 249(a)(1)	No requirement of premeditation; intent can be inferred from circumstances.	Some circuits require premeditation to prove hate crime.	No premiditation element required; evidence supported motive.
Interplay with Flores/Shelby County and federalism concerns			Precedent governs; court follows Jones while noting tensions with Flores and Shelby County.

Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968) (Congress can rationally determine badges and incidents of slavery under Thirteenth Amendment)
Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013) (Current conditions must justify extraordinary measures; impact on reconstruction amendments)
Flores v. City of Boerne, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (Congruence and proportionality standard; cannot redefine rights under the Fourteenth Amendment)
Lopez v. United States, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (Limits of Commerce Clause; local activities cannot be federalized without nexus)
Morrison v. United States, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (Limits of Congress’s power under Commerce Clause; intrastate violence generally local)
Bob Lawrence Realty, Inc., 474 F.2d 115 (5th Cir.1973) (Section 3604(e) upheld as enforcing Thirteenth Amendment badges/incidents)
Hatch v. United States, 722 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir.2013) (Thirteenth Amendment power to define badges/incidents; debates about current conditions)
Maybee, 687 F.3d 1026 (8th Cir.2012) (Narrow challenge on elements; supports § 249(a)(1) validity)