26 F.4th 610
4th Cir.2022Background
- Christopher Hasson, a U.S. Coast Guard lieutenant, was arrested after agents found Tramadol pills (including in his blood) and numerous firearms, silencers, ammunition, and tactical gear at home and work; he pleaded guilty to possession of firearms as an unlawful user/addict of a controlled substance (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)) and related counts.
- Investigators uncovered writings and internet activity expressing white‑nationalist violence, a June 2017 draft “manifesto” advocating mass and targeted violence, correspondence with a white‑nationalist leader, and research on explosives, long‑range shooting, and locations of political figures.
- A sentencing search of his home recovered steroids, growth hormone, weapons, assembled silencers, and evidence of sniper practice and ballistics calculations; the government characterized him as intending violent, politically motivated attacks.
- Hasson moved to dismiss § 922(g)(3) as facially vague; the district court denied the motion, Hasson pled guilty but reserved his right to appeal the denial and his sentence.
- At sentencing the district court applied the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines terrorism enhancement, U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4, finding Hasson’s offense intended to promote a federal crime of terrorism and increased his Guidelines range substantially; Hasson appealed alleging vagueness and error in the terrorism‑enhancement application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial vagueness of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) | Hasson: terms "unlawful user" and "addicted to" are unconstitutionally vague on their face | Government: Hasson’s conduct is plainly covered; a defendant whose conduct is clearly proscribed cannot raise a facial vagueness claim | Court: Denied; because §922(g)(3) clearly applies to Hasson, he cannot mount a facial vagueness challenge |
| Whether Johnson/Dimaya eliminated rule barring facial vagueness challenges by those clearly covered | Hasson: Johnson and Dimaya undermine prior precedents and allow his facial challenge despite clear application | Government: Johnson/Dimaya did not overrule the settled rule; precedents still control | Court: Rejected Hasson’s reading; rule remains that one whose conduct is clearly proscribed may not bring a facial vagueness challenge |
| Validity of U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4 when applied absent a terrorism conviction | Hasson: AEDPA’s 1996 directive limits §3A1.4 to cases where defendant is convicted of an enumerated federal crime of terrorism; Commission’s broader application is ultra vires | Government: Commission reasonably interpreted Congress to require replacing "international terrorism" with "federal crime of terrorism," not to limit application to only listed convictions | Court: Upheld the Commission’s interpretation and §3A1.4’s application absent a terrorism conviction; no conflict with Congress’s directive |
| Whether district court clearly erred in applying §3A1.4 (treatment of defense expert) | Hasson: District court summarily dismissed Dr. Hart’s violence‑risk assessment and ignored his conclusions, warranting reversal | Government: Court considered and rejected Dr. Hart’s methodology and conclusions after cross‑examination and weighed them against voluminous contrary evidence | Court: No clear error; court addressed expert testimony, identified weaknesses, and had ample record evidence to support the terrorism enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, [citation="561 U.S. 1"] (2010) (vagueness doctrine and limits on as‑applied/facial challenges where conduct is clearly proscribed)
- Johnson v. United States, [citation="576 U.S. 591"] (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause and rejected the requirement that a statute be vague in all applications)
- Sessions v. Dimaya, [citation="138 S. Ct. 1204"] (2018) (applied Johnson to similar residual clause; addressed scope of facial vagueness analysis)
- Expression Hair Design v. Schneiderman, [citation="137 S. Ct. 1144"] (2017) (applied rule that plaintiffs whose conduct is clearly proscribed cannot prevail on vagueness challenges)
- Parker v. Levy, [citation="417 U.S. 733"] (1974) (establishes that one to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not challenge it for vagueness)
- Broadrick v. Oklahoma, [citation="413 U.S. 601"] (1973) (prudential limits on facial challenges; personal rights requirement)
- United States v. Kobito, [citation="994 F.3d 696"] (4th Cir. 2021) (§3A1.4 applies when offense was intended to promote a federal crime of terrorism even absent a terrorism conviction)
- United States v. Hassan, [citation="742 F.3d 104"] (4th Cir. 2014) (standards for applying the terrorism enhancement and the requirement to identify supporting evidence)