United States v. Moncrief
3:16-cr-00045
N.D. Miss.Aug 25, 2017Background
- Defendant Jason L. Moncrief pled guilty to one count of knowingly possessing unregistered firearms, including destructive devices, under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d).
- Sentencing was originally set for August 24, 2017; objections to the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) were filed May 17, 2017 regarding the number of devices and designation as destructive devices.
- Defendant contended certain devices should be classified as overpressure devices, not destructive devices, and sought an evidentiary hearing to determine the actual number of devices and the applicable guideline range.
- At the sentencing hearing on August 24, 2017, the Court overruled the PSR objections on the record and relied on authorities presented at the hearing.
- The court recognized its role in evaluating the PSR’s reliability and noted the PSR’s findings were proved by a preponderance of the evidence for sentencing.
- The United States Probation Service is responsible for presenting all relevant information for sentencing, which the court found proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PSR correctly classifies devices as destructive devices | Moncrief argues devices were not destructive devices. | Moncrief contends four devices are overpressure rather than destructive devices. | Objections overruled; PSR classification sustained. |
| Whether unassembled components can render a device a destructive device under the NFA | Prosecution relies on the law recognizing components as destructive devices if ready to assemble. | Defendant challenges application of the theory to these specific devices. | Court adopts the statutory and case framework recognizing assembled or readily assemblable components as destructive devices. |
| Whether the PSR is sufficiently reliable for sentencing | PSR bears indicia of reliability for sentencing purposes. | Moncrief challenges PSR accuracy, seeking evidentiary hearing. | PSR reliability is presumed; objections overruled; PSR proven by preponderance. |
| What evidentiary standard applies to PSR’s factual findings for sentencing | Preponderance standard applies to sentencing facts. | Not specifically contended beyond challenging PSR entries. | The court applied the preponderance standard for sentencing findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Price, 877 F.2d 334 (5th Cir. 1989) (a homemade explosive device is a prohibited destructive device even if components are lawful)
- United States v. Wilson, 546 F.2d 1175 (5th Cir. 1977) (unassembled components may constitute a destructive device if essential parts are possessed)
- United States v. Charles, 883 F.2d 355 (5th Cir. 1989) (devices designed to be weapons meet the definition of destructive devices)
- United States v. Lewis, 476 F.3d 369 (5th Cir. 2007) (supports treating devices with necessary explosive components as destructive devices)
- United States v. Johnson, 152 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 1998) (pipes bombs with shrapnel characteristics meet destructive device criteria)