United States v. Thomas Royal
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20019
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Royal was convicted of unlawfully possessing ammunition by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), after police found a revolver loaded with five .32 caliber rounds in antique firearm.
- Evidence showed the revolver was manufactured in 1895 (antique) and ammunition traveled in interstate commerce; the government relied on testimony about manufacture and interstate nexus, not explicit design testimony.
- Royal had three prior convictions used to trigger a fifteen-year ACCA mandatory minimum, leading to a sentence of 188 months.
- The district court applied the modified categorical approach to classify Royal’s 2007 Maryland second-degree assault conviction as a violent felony under the ACCA.
- On appeal, Royal challenged (a) sufficiency of evidence regarding ammunition being designed for use in any firearm, (b) a plain-error issue about jury instruction on knowledge, and (c) the use of the modified categorical approach under Descamps.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction on sufficiency and plain-error grounds but vacated the ACCA sentence and remanded for resentencing in light of Descamps.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence on ‘ammunition’ | Royal argued rounds were designed for use in antique firearm only. | Government need not prove non-antique design; an affirmative defense burden shifts. | Evidence supported ammunition as 'designed for use in any firearm'; conviction affirmed on this element. |
| Plain error in jury instruction on knowledge | District court failed to require knowledge that rounds were ammunition per GCA definition. | Instruction was correct and did not require exclusive design knowledge. | No plain error; instruction properly conveyed knowledge of facts that make conduct illegal. |
| Use of modified categorical approach for ACCA predicate | Maryland second-degree assault could be categorized via the modified categorical approach. | Descamps forecloses applying the modified categorical approach to this indivisible statute. | Descamps requires reversal; Maryland second-degree assault cannot be a valid ACCA predicate via the modified approach. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mixon, 457 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2006) (bullets: ‘ammunition’ designed for use in any firearm; antique-only design as defense)
- United States v. McMillan, 346 F. App’x 945 (4th Cir. 2009) (antique firearm exception treated as affirmative defense)
- United States v. Mayo, 705 F.2d 62 (2d Cir. 1983) (affirmative-defense burden for antique firearm exception)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (limits the use of the modified categorical approach for divisible vs. indivisible statutes)
- United States v. Torres–Miguel, 701 F.3d 165 (4th Cir. 2012) (traditional categorical approach for ACCA after Descamps)
- Karimi v. Holder, 715 F.3d 561 (4th Cir. 2013) (Maryland second-degree assault reaches any unlawful touching; not categorically a violent felony)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (definition of violent felony under ACCA and use of force considerations)
- Nicolas v. State, 44 A.3d 396 (Md. 2012) (Maryland completed battery form elements and jury instruction posture)
- Harcum v. United States, 587 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2009) (standard for de novo review of ACCA sentencing determinations)
- United States v. Alston, 611 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2010) (guidance on ACCA determinations and prior convictions)