United States v. Lloyd Lockwood
789 F.3d 773
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Lockwood was charged with possession of a destructive device and felon in possession of a firearm; he stipulated the device was destructive and the two end caps were Chinese-made.
- Trial focused on whether he knowingly possessed the pipe bomb; the jury found him guilty on both counts despite the stipulations.
- District court sentenced him to 120 months, far above the calculated guidelines range of 33–41 months, on concurrent terms.
- On appeal, Lockwood challenged (i) the device’s status as a destructive device without a power supply, (ii) nexus to interstate commerce for §922(g), and (iii) the sentence’s procedural and substantive reasonableness.
- The opinion affirms the convictions but vacates and remands for resentencing due to procedural deficiencies in the sentencing ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stipulations and destruction device element | Lockwood: stipulation insufficient to prove destruction device. | Lockwood: device not proven to be destructive device without power supply. | Convictions affirmed; stipulations binding; challenge waived |
| Interstate commerce nexus for §922(g) | Lockwood: end caps alone do not prove nexus for interstate commerce. | Lockwood: any component traveling interstate suffices; waiver applies. | Convictions affirmed; nexus element waived due to stipulations |
| Procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentence | Lockwood: district court failed to adequately explain departure and consider mitigation. | Lockwood: sentence within reason given his history and offense. | Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing; substantive review not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fluker, 698 F.3d 988 (7th Cir. 2012) (waiver of issues from stipulations when defendant preserves strategy)
- United States v. Muse, 83 F.3d 672 (4th Cir. 1996) (waiver of challenges to stipulated facts)
- United States v. Verna, 113 F.3d 499 (4th Cir. 1997) (one component traveling interstate suffices for nexus)
- United States v. Foley, 740 F.3d 1079 (7th Cir. 2014) (commerce element satisfied by parts; supports sufficiency reasoning)
- United States v. Snyder, 635 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2011) (requirement to explain departure from Guidelines for reasonableness)
- United States v. Castro-Juarez, 425 F.3d 430 (7th Cir. 2005) (vacating excessive sentence due to insufficient justification)
- United States v. Higdon, 531 F.3d 561 (7th Cir. 2008) (highly above-guidelines sentence requires compelling justification)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2008) (procedural requirements for explanations of variance from Guidelines)
- United States v. Jackson, 547 F.3d 786 (7th Cir. 2008) (explain factors and provide record-based justification for sentence)
- United States v. Poulin, 745 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2014) (mitigation arguments must be considered on the record)