517 F. App'x 411
6th Cir.2013Background
- McCormick, a felon, was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- The district court designated him as an armed career criminal under § 924(e)(1) and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment.
- Police were dispatched after McCormick’s girlfriend reported domestic violence and guns at his home.
- Officers entered McCormick’s home after he allegedly invited them inside, and seized four firearms.
- McCormick moved to suppress the firearms as obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment; the district court denied the motion.
- On appeal, McCormick challenges the conviction and the sentence, and the court affirms the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the entry into McCormick’s home was consented to. | McCormick did not consent to entry. | District court found consent based on McCormick inviting them inside. | Consent found; no clear error; entry lawful. |
| Whether evidence of Kentucky-law possession affected § 922(g)(1) knowledge. | Kentucky-law allowance shows lack of knowledge of possession. | State law is irrelevant to knowledge under § 922(g)(1). | District court did not abuse discretion; belief about Kentucky law irrelevant to knowledge. |
| Whether the denial of entrapment by estoppel instruction was error. | State parole guidance might render possession legal. | Advice from state, not federal officer, cannot bind federal law. | No abuse of discretion; no entrapment-by-estoppel instruction needed. |
| Whether evidence supports the § 922(g)(1) conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. | Proved felony convictions, guns under bed, interstate commerce involvement. | Record supports elements of possession and interstate movement. | Evidence sufficient for conviction. |
| Whether designation as armed career criminal and the sentence violated federal law or Eighth Amendment. | Ancient convictions and 15-year minimum are excessive. | ACCA designation permissible; Eighth Amendment challenge rejected. | ACCA designation and 15-year minimum affirmed; no Eighth Amendment violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Perry, 703 F.3d 906 (6th Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing consent findings on entry)
- United States v. Fletcher, 295 F. App’x 749 (6th Cir. 2008) (voluntary-consent and credibility considerations)
- United States v. Davis, 27 F. App’x 592 (6th Cir. 2001) (knowledge requirement under § 922(g)(1))
- United States v. Beavers, 206 F.3d 706 (6th Cir. 2000) (knowledge that possession is voluntary, not legality of possession)
- United States v. Capps, 77 F.3d 350 (10th Cir. 1996) (cases interpreting knowledge requirement under § 922(g)(1))
- United States v. Ormsby, 252 F.3d 844 (6th Cir. 2001) (agency to bind federal law; lack of binding authority from state officials)
- United States v. Triana, 468 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 2006) (elements of entrapment by estoppel defense)
- United States v. Theunick, 651 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for jury-instruction rulings)
- United States v. Moore, 643 F.3d 451 (6th Cir. 2011) (Eighth Amendment proportionality standard for ACCA)