United States v. Demario Montague
438 F. App'x 478
6th Cir.2011Background
- Montague was indicted on felon-in-possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) and later on a superseding count for knowingly possessing a stolen firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(j)).
- At trial, officers observed Montague supposedly conceal something under the seat; a firearm was found on the floorboard in front of his seat in plain view.
- The jury convicted Montague of felon-in-possession but acquitted him of knowingly possessing a stolen firearm.
- The PSR applied two two-level enhancements (obstruction of justice and stolen-firearm).
- The district court declined the obstruction enhancement, applied the stolen-firearm enhancement, and sentenced Montague to 110 months (range 110–120 months, capped at 120 by statute).
- On appeal, Montague challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence; the court affirms conviction but vacates and remands for resentencing due to procedural error regarding the stolen-firearm enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove possession. | Government contends there is sufficient evidence of constructive possession. | Montague argues the evidence fails to show possession beyond proximity. | Sufficient evidence supports constructive possession. |
| District court authority to reject or vary from the stolen-firearm enhancement on policy grounds. | Montague argues court could reject or vary on policy grounds. | Government argues court had discretion within policy-based variances. | Procedural error; court did not recognize authority to vary on policy grounds; remand required. |
| Substantive reasonableness of the sentence with respect to policy-ground variance. | Montague asserts sentence improper due to policy-ground concerns. | Government contends no error in substantive reasonableness given procedural issues. | Substantive issue not reached due to remand for procedural error. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. M/G Transp. Servs., Inc., 173 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 1999) (standard for sufficiency review; do not weigh evidence or assess credibility)
- United States v. Martinez, 588 F.3d 301 (6th Cir. 2009) (substantial evidence standard for sufficiency; Jackson v. Virginia standard applied)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1981) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Schreane, 331 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2003) (constructive possession can be proven by circumstantial evidence)
- United States v. Davis, 577 F.3d 660 (6th Cir. 2009) (constructive possession sufficient when defendant showed dominion/control)
- United States v. Bailey, 553 F.3d 940 (6th Cir. 2009) (recognizes proximity plus additional evidence supports possession)
- United States v. Johnson, 553 F.3d 990 (6th Cir. 2009) (remand when district court does not recognize authority to vary)
- United States v. Maye, 582 F.3d 622 (6th Cir. 2009) (remand when district court failed to recognize policy-ground variance authority)