United States v. Davis
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2645
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Davis, a felon, possessed a semi-automatic firearm with a magazine recovered by police after a disturbance.
- The magazine contained 21 rounds of 9-mm ammunition; the gun had no trigger and was inoperable.
- Davis pled guilty to unlawful possession of a semi-automatic firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- PSR recommended base offense level 22 under § 2K2.1(a)(3) because the firearm could accept a large-capacity magazine; Davis objected.
- At sentencing, testimony showed the gun could be fixed to fire and would accept the magazine; district court overruled the objection and imposed the enhanced level.
- Davis appeals the § 2K2.1(a)(3) determination; the court analyzes the historical amendments and interprets Application Note 2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2K2.1(a)(3) applies to an inoperable firearm. | Davis argues Note 2 requires operability at offense time. | Government contends Note 2 does not require operability, focus on design. | Note 2 applies; operability not required for Note 2, but proximity requirement satisfied. |
| Whether Application Note 2's proximity requirement governs the § 2K2.1(a)(3) base level. | Davis reads Note 2 to limit to operable guns at offense time. | Government reads Note 2 as defining a broader concept of a firearm. | Application Note 2 clarifies proximity requirement; base level applies if firearm could accept a large-capacity magazine. |
| Whether § 2K2.1(a)(3) should be interpreted consistently with 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3) and prior amendments. | Note 2 should mirror § 921(a)(3)’s definition. | Text and history support the same meaning as § 921(a)(3). | The term firearm in Note 2 aligns with § 921(a)(3); consistent interpretation upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. York, 830 F.2d 885 (8th Cir. 1987) (firearm need not be operable to meet § 921(a)(3) definition)
- United States v. Christmann, 193 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir. 1999) (definition turns on design, not momentary operability)
- United States v. Piggie, 316 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2003) (inoperable assault weapons exception; permanency considerations)
- United States v. Kowal, 527 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2008) (treats same word in related provisions with consistent meaning)