United States v. Todd Bramer, 832 F.3d 908

Todd Bramer pled guilty to one count under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) for possessing firearms while an unlawful user of a controlled substance (admitted regular marijuana use and possession of at least three firearms).
In his written plea, Bramer admitted knowing possession of two handguns and at least one other firearm while unlawfully using marijuana.
Bramer waived the right to appeal all non-jurisdictional issues; only a facial constitutional challenge remained available.
On appeal, Bramer argued § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutionally vague as to the terms “unlawful user” and “addicted to.”
The court applied Eighth Circuit precedent requiring a showing that the statute is vague as applied to the defendant’s conduct, not merely in some applications.
The court affirmed the conviction, finding the record (Bramer’s admissions) foreclosed a successful vagueness challenge as applied to him.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 922(g)(3) is facially unconstitutionally vague	§ 922(g)(3)’s terms “unlawful user” and “addicted to” lack clear standards and are void for vagueness	Statute provides adequate notice as applied to Bramer’s admitted marijuana use and firearm possession	Rejected Bramer’s facial challenge; statute not shown vague as applied to him
Whether Johnson altered the standard for facial vagueness challenges here	Johnson permits broader vagueness review; statute may be invalid in some applications	Prior Eighth Circuit law requires vagueness showing as applied to defendant’s conduct	Court acknowledged Johnson but applied circuit law requiring as-applied showing; Bramer failed to satisfy it
Whether plea admissions preclude vagueness relief	Admissions prove conduct falls squarely within statute, defeating vagueness claim	Same — plea admissions provide adequate notice and bar relief	Plea admissions foreclosed vagueness challenge on appeal
Whether appellate waiver limits claims	Waiver bars all nonjurisdictional appeals, leaving only facial constitutional challenge	Agreed parties — only facial challenge preserved	Court limited review to facial challenge and required as-applied showing; affirmed

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (clarified vagueness analysis and rejected that some valid applications save a vague statute)
United States v. Stephens, 594 F.3d 1033 (8th Cir. 2010) (describes pre-Johnson facial-challenge requirement)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (facial-challenge standard cited for statutory validity)
United States v. Cook, 782 F.3d 983 (8th Cir.) (requires showing vagueness as applied to defendant’s conduct)
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) (limits vagueness challenges by noting those engaged in clearly prohibited conduct cannot complain for others)
United States v. Huckaby, 698 F.2d 915 (8th Cir. 1982) (constitutional challenges not raised at trial generally not cognizable on appeal)
United States v. Seay, 620 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2010) (appellate waiver doctrine limiting preserved issues)