United States v. Roderick Johnson
684 F. App'x 440
5th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Roderick Johnson convicted by jury of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Sentence: 120 months imprisonment and three years supervised release.
- Johnson argued § 922(g)(1) violates the Commerce Clause.
- He also challenged sufficiency of evidence that the firearm had traveled in interstate commerce; ATF agent testified the gun was manufactured in Germany and imported/distributed through Los Angeles, California, and was found in Texas.
- Johnson sought a U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction; the district court denied it after he refused to provide fingerprints and only stipulated to possession mid-trial.
- Appeal reviewed: constitutionality (precedent-controlled), sufficiency challenge for plain error, and denial of § 3E1.1 reduction under a highly deferential standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) under the Commerce Clause | § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress's Commerce Clause power | Government: statute is constitutional under existing precedent | Rejected Johnson; statute upheld based on circuit precedent |
| Sufficiency of interstate-commerce nexus evidence | Insufficient proof the firearm traveled in interstate commerce | Government: testimony showed manufacture in Germany and import/distribution in California, establishing nexus | No plain error; evidence sufficient to show interstate nexus |
| Denial of U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 reduction | Johnson argued he accepted responsibility and merited reduction despite going to trial | Government: Johnson delayed stipulation, refused fingerprints, and contested sufficiency—indicative of nonacceptance | Affirmed; denial had a foundation and was not an abuse given deferential review |
| Whether this is a rare case warranting § 3E1.1 despite trial | Relied on Fells—pretrial admissions and cooperation justify reduction | Court: Fells distinguishable because Johnson did not admit facts pretrial or cooperate | Court declined to apply Fells; reduction not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013) (upholding § 922(g)(1) as constitutional under Commerce Clause)
- United States v. Wallace, 889 F.2d 580 (5th Cir. 1989) (same)
- United States v. Davis, 690 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 2012) (plain-error standard for unpreserved sufficiency challenges)
- United States v. Guidry, 406 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2005) (interstate nexus may be shown by evidence of manufacture/import)
- United States v. Broadnax, 601 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2010) (similar interstate-commerce nexus precedent)
- United States v. Rudzavice, 586 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2009) (deferential review standard for denial of § 3E1.1 reduction)
- United States v. Fells, 78 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 1996) (defendant pretrial admission and cooperation can support § 3E1.1 despite going to trial)
- United States v. Cordero, 465 F.3d 626 (5th Cir. 2006) (challenging sufficiency of evidence can indicate lack of acceptance of responsibility)
AFFIRMED.