United States v. Sternquist, 24-2135

Kara Sternquist pled guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), after prior felony convictions related to producing and selling fake identification documents.
The underlying conduct involved possession of multiple devices classified as firearm silencers, as well as phony law enforcement badges and "ghost guns."
Sentenced principally to 60 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release in the Eastern District of New York.
On appeal, Sternquist challenged the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) (specifically as applied to nonviolent felons) and the procedural and substantive reasonableness of her sentence.
The Second Circuit reviewed the case under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and considered both procedural steps and totality of sentencing circumstances.

Issue	Sternquist's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)	Statute is unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to nonviolent felons	Statute is constitutional under recent Second Circuit precedent	§ 922(g)(1) is constitutional, challenges foreclosed by Zherka v. Bondi
Guidelines Calculation (Percieved misclassification of devices as silencers)	Devices were solvent traps, not silencers, and district court miscalculated base offense level	ATF and court found devices were silencers based on physical characteristics and intent	No procedural error; district court’s classification upheld
Consideration of Improper Factors at Sentencing	District court improperly referenced "gang bangers", terrorists, and Sternquist's past hardships as sentencing factors	Court’s references contextual, and motive/personal circumstances are appropriate sentencing considerations	No error; court did not rely on improper or erroneous facts
Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence	Sentence failed to properly account for hardships, mitigating factors, or potential sentencing disparities	Sentence within guidelines, all circumstances considered and explained	Sentence is substantively reasonable and affirmed

United States v. Yilmaz, 910 F.3d 686 (2d Cir. 2018) (sets standards for appellate review of sentencing decisions)
United States v. Williams, 998 F.3d 538 (2d Cir. 2021) (defines substantive unreasonableness in sentencing)
United States v. Messina, 806 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 2015) (Guideline sentences usually substantively reasonable)
United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2012) (discusses sentencing disparities and review standards)
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993) (motive may be considered in sentencing)
United States v. Kane, 452 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2006) (personal circumstances may be weighed in sentencing)