United States v. Michael Allen
20-4577
4th Cir.Jul 28, 2021Background
- Michael Thomas Allen pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and received a 100‑month sentence.
- The district court applied a Sentencing Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2K2.1(b)(4)(B) for possession of a firearm with an altered or obliterated serial number.
- Allen appealed, arguing the enhancement was erroneous.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed legal questions de novo and factual findings for clear error, noting the Government must prove disputed Guidelines enhancements by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The court concluded the record plausibly supported the district court’s finding that Allen knowingly and constructively possessed the firearm and affirmed the enhancement and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the §2K2.1(b)(4)(B) enhancement for an altered/obliterated serial number was properly applied | Government: Evidence shows Allen knew of and had dominion/control over the firearm with an altered/obliterated serial number | Allen: Insufficient evidence linking him to the firearm and to knowledge of an altered/obliterated serial number | Affirmed — district court’s finding of constructive possession and enhancement upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Allen, 909 F.3d 671 (4th Cir. 2018) (standards for reviewing Guidelines challenges)
- United States v. Wooden, 887 F.3d 591 (4th Cir. 2018) (clear‑error standard explained)
- United States v. Ferebee, 957 F.3d 406 (4th Cir. 2020) (plausibility of district court’s account)
- United States v. Kobito, 994 F.3d 696 (4th Cir. 2021) (Government’s preponderance burden for enhancements)
- United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621 (4th Cir. 2010) (definition of preponderance of the evidence)
- United States v. Lawing, 703 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. 2012) (actual and constructive possession explained)
- United States v. Shorter, 328 F.3d 167 (4th Cir. 2003) (constructive possession doctrine)
- United States v. Hall, 858 F.3d 254 (4th Cir. 2017) (knowledge and dominion/control elements for constructive possession)
- United States v. Al Sabahi, 719 F.3d 305 (4th Cir. 2013) (constructive possession must be intentional)
- United States v. Scott, 424 F.3d 431 (4th Cir. 2005) (intentionality requirement for possession)
- United States v. Blue, 808 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2015) (proximity or mere presence insufficient to prove dominion/control)