United States v. Sadonnie Marquis Kitchen, 705 F. App'x 842

Defendant Sadonnie Kitchen pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and was sentenced to 60 months.
District court applied an enhanced base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) based on Kitchen’s prior Florida drug‑trafficking conviction.
Florida statute at issue criminalized possession (including constructive) of specified quantities of hydrocodone (4 grams to 30 kilograms).
Kitchen challenged the Guidelines enhancement, arguing the Florida statute does not necessarily include intent to distribute.
On appeal Kitchen also argued for the first time that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is facially and as‑applied unconstitutional.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting both the Guidelines challenge and the constitutional attack on § 922(g).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kitchen)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether prior Florida drug‑trafficking conviction qualifies as a “controlled substance offense” for Guidelines enhancement	Florida statute does not require intent to distribute; conviction based on possession should not trigger enhancement	Florida statute infers intent to distribute from drug quantity; prior conviction qualifies under §4B1.2(b) and §2K2.1(a)(4)(A)	Enhancement affirmed — Florida statute infers intent from quantity and qualifies as controlled substance offense under binding precedent
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is facially or as‑applied unconstitutional	§922(g) is void facially and as applied	§922(g) is constitutional; government proved minimal interstate nexus via plea colloquy admission that firearm was manufactured out of state	Constitutional; no plain error in failing to void conviction — minimal nexus shown by admission

United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for Guidelines issues)
United States v. Scott, 263 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2001) (§ 922(g) facially constitutional under Commerce Clause)
United States v. Lipsey, 40 F.3d 1200 (11th Cir. 1994) (look to statutory elements, not underlying conduct)
United States v. Madera‑Madera, 333 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2003) (Georgia trafficking statute inference of intent from quantity; controlled substance offense)
United States v. James, 430 F.3d 1150 (11th Cir. 2005) (Florida trafficking statute infers intent to distribute from quantity for ACCA purposes)
Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (limits on modified categorical approach when statute has single, indivisible elements)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (divisibility test for statutes with alternative elements vs. alternative means)
United States v. White, 837 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2016) (affirming James; Descamps/Mathis did not overrule James)
United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708 (11th Cir. 2010) (minimal interstate commerce nexus shown by firearm’s out‑of‑state manufacture)