United States v. Thomas
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25610
| 2d Cir. | 2010Background
- Thomas pled guilty to felon in possession of a firearm; district court applied a two-level stolen firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) based on the gun being stolen, despite no knowledge of its status; PSR calculated guiding range at 57–71 months with base 20, enhancements for firearm used in another felony and for stolen status; Thomas argued lack of mens rea invalidates the enhancement; court adhered to Griffiths and post-Booker advisability of guidelines; Thomas was sentenced principally to 57 months, concurrent with 18 months for related supervised release violations; Thomas appeals challenging the stolen firearm enhancement and related equal protection and discretionary aspects; the panel affirms conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) is valid without mens rea for stolen firearms. | Thomas argues lack of mens rea violates due process. | Thomas argues strict liability guideline is unconstitutional compared to explosives. | Stolen firearm enhancement upheld as valid. |
| Equal protection: different treatment for stolen firearms vs. stolen explosives. | Thomas asserts irrational disparity in penalties. | Classification rationally based on aggregate risk; data supports distinction. | Rational-basis equality upheld; no equal-protection violation. |
| District court's handling of policy-based objections to the enhancement. | Court failed to adequately consider policy arguments against the guideline. | Court considered arguments and provided basis for decision; discretionary post-Booker authority acknowledged. | No procedural error; court properly exercised discretion. |
| Proper calculation of Guidelines range and post-Booker discretion to vary. | Guidelines should be treated advisory; error in range calculation. | Guidelines advisory but properly calculated range; discretion valid. | Guidelines correctly calculated and discretionary consideration affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Griffiths, 41 F.3d 844 (2d Cir.1994) (stolen-firearm enhancement valid without mens rea; strict liability consistent with policy goals)
- United States v. Litchfield, 986 F.2d 21 (2d Cir.1993) (guideline applies regardless of defendant's knowledge)
- United States v. Brown, 514 F.3d 256 (2d Cir.2008) (post-Booker propriety of related strict-liability guideline)
- United States v. Ortiz, 621 F.3d 82 (2d Cir.2010) (upholding same provision; respect for post-Booker discretion)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir.2008) (en banc; guideline-based sentence after Booker emphasis on advisory role)
- United States v. Bonilla, 618 F.3d 102 (2d Cir.2010) (guidelines normally start point; district court may vary after considering arguments)
- United States v. Proyect, 989 F.2d 84 (2d Cir.1993) (equal protection rational basis framework for sentencing)
- Griffin v. Mann, 156 F.3d 288 (2d Cir.1998) (rational basis review for classifications in sentencing)
- United States v. Samas, 561 F.3d 108 (2d Cir.2009) (rational-basis equal protection in crack/cocaine disparity context)
- United States v. Beach Commc'ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993) (rational basis standard for classifications)
- United States v. Handy, 570 F.Supp.2d 437 (E.D.N.Y.2008) (discussed as contextual support for arguments; not controlling)