United States v. Kirby
490 F. App'x 113
10th Cir.2012Background
- Kirby pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 924(a)(2) under a conditional plea agreement.
- District court denied Kirby’s motion to dismiss the indictment, relying on Scarborough v. United States and United States v. Patton.
- Kirby appealed alleging § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.
- The order was reviewed de novo, and the district court’s ruling was upheld.
- Kirby was sentenced to 188 months and five years of supervised release; the judgment was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause? | Kirby argues the statute exceeds Congress’s power. | Government maintains controlling authority upholds constitutionality. | No; statute upheld. |
| Do Scarborough and Patton control the constitutional question? | Kirby relies on Scarborough to limit reach. | Court must follow Scarborough and Patton as controlling authority. | They control the outcome; statute sustained. |
| What is the proper standard of review for constitutionality challenges to § 922(g)(1)? | De novo review supports invalidation. | De novo review confirms validity given precedent. | De novo review applied; precedent upholds validity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (Supreme Court, 1977) (minimal nexus: firearm’s interstate movement suffices for regulation)
- Patton v. United States, 451 F.3d 615 (10th Cir. 2006) (Scarborough-based authority reaffirmed; broader reach acknowledged)
- Hampshire v. U.S., 95 F.3d 999 (10th Cir. 1996) (cites to Commerce Clause authority framework)
- Haney v. United States, 264 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir. 2001) (standard for reviewing constitutionality challenges to statute)
- Nichols v. United States, 169 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 1999) (recognizes limits and application of Scarborough authority)