United States v. Comrie, 842 F.3d 348

Background

On Dec. 24, 2014, Louisiana probation officers found Comrie with a marijuana cigarette and recovered marijuana (~12g), a .357 revolver, and ammunition during a probation visit.
Comrie pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana (21 U.S.C. § 844(a)) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)); he did not raise a RFRA defense in the district court.
The presentence report and Comrie’s wife’s statements linked his marijuana use to his Rastafari faith; those statements were adopted into the record and the district court relied on the presentence report.
The district court sentenced Comrie to concurrent 15-month prison terms; Comrie appealed only raising for the first time on appeal a RFRA-based claim (conceded unraised below).
The Fifth Circuit reviewed under the plain-error standard and held there was no reversible plain error because Comrie never asserted a RFRA defense below and the court had no duty to raise it sua sponte.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Comrie)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether the district court erred by accepting plea and sentencing without addressing an unraised RFRA defense	RFRA should excuse or mitigate his marijuana possession because his use was tied to sincere Rastafari religious practice	Comrie forfeited/waived RFRA by not asserting it below; no plain error; district court need not raise RFRA sua sponte	No reversible plain error; district court did not err in failing to consider an unraised RFRA defense
Whether plain-error review should be applied to an unraised RFRA claim	asks appellate relief despite not presenting RFRA in district court	Government argued forfeiture but did not press waiver at oral argument; court applies plain-error standard	Court applies plain-error review and finds first prong (error) not satisfied because defense was unraised
Whether the appellate court should exercise remedial discretion if error found	contends error warrants reversal or relief	Government contends discretion should not be exercised because district court lacked opportunity to resolve RFRA fact questions	Even if error existed, appellate remedial discretion denied — no effect on fairness, integrity, or public reputation of proceedings
Whether court has duty to raise RFRA sua sponte	Comrie implies court should have considered RFRA given record references to religion	Government: courts are not required to enforce unraised defenses; issues must be presented to district court	Court holds no duty to raise RFRA sua sponte and cites precedent declining to enforce unraised defenses on plain-error review

Key Cases Cited

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (RFRA provides a cause of action to assert religious-exercise burdens in court)
Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (describing RFRA’s protection of religious exercise and burden-shifting framework)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error review framework)
Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709 (2016) (district court’s failure to enforce an unraised limitations defense cannot be plain error)
United States v. Muhammad, 165 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 1999) (declining to grant relief for RFRA/First Amendment issues raised first on appeal)
Cordova-Soto, 804 F.3d 714 (5th Cir. 2015) (plain-error prongs and remedial discretion discussion)
Ali v. Stephens, 822 F.3d 776 (5th Cir. 2016) (describing elements of religious-exercise claim and RFRA-like standard in related statutes)