United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Reverses 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) Conviction on Remand from Supreme Court 

United States v. Daniels, No. 22-60596 (5th Cir. Jan. 6, 2025) 

 

Daniels’ Conviction and First Appeal

 In 2023, the Fifth Circuit took up the question of whether the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, rendered the criminal statute 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) unconstitutional. United States v. Daniels, 77 F.4th 337 (5th Cir. 2023). 

Section 922(g)(3) of Title 18 prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm if they are an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance. Patrick Daniels was charged in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi for violating § 922(g)(3). While under indictment, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Bruen which held firearms regulations unconstitutional unless they are rooted in our nation’s history and tradition of gun regulation. Daniels moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional under the new Bruen standard. 

The district court denied Daniels’ motion after concluding that § 922(g)(3) was a longstanding gun regulation. Daniels proceeded to trial and was found guilty by a jury. He was sentenced to nearly four years in prison and barred for life from possessing a firearm. 

Daniels appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On appeal, Daniels reasserted his Second Amendment challenge. Utilizing the two-prong Bruen standard, the Fifth Circuit concluded that Daniels’ § 922(g)(3) conviction was inconsistent with our nation’s history and tradition of gun regulation, reversed Daniels’ conviction, and dismissed the indictment. 

 

Daniels’ Case Goes to the Supreme Court

Despite winning his case in the Fifth Circuit, the government filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). The Court held in Rahimi that a different statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), was not unconstitutional in light of Bruen, and that the nation had a history of regulating firearms for those who pose a threat to the safety of others.  

After the Rahimi decision, a number of cases challenging § 922(g) were remanded for reconsideration. Daniels was sent back to the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of Rahimi. United States v. Daniels, 144 S.Ct. 2707 (2024). 

 

While Daniels is pending, the Fifth Circuit issues its published decision in Connelly

After the United State Supreme Court sent Daniels back to the Fifth Circuit for further consideration, the court of appeals issued a separate published opinion in a similar case, United States v. Connelly, 117 F.4th 269 (5th Cir. 2024). Connelly was charged in the district court with possessing firearms as an unlawful user of controlled substances, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3); and providing firearms and ammunition to an unlawful user of controlled substances, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3). Connelly filed a motion in the district court to dismiss the indictment as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The district court agreed and dismissed the charges. 

The government appealed the dismissal to the Fifth Circuit. Upon consideration of the case, and with further guidance from the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rahimi, the Fifth Circuit held that “[t]he short of it is that our history and tradition may support some limits on a presently intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon . . . but they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage.” 117 F.4th at 272. The Fifth Circuit accordingly affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Connelly’s 922(g)(3) charge. 

 

Utilizing Rahimi and Connelly, the Fifth Circuit again reverses Daniels’ § 922(g)(3) conviction

After a lengthy procedural battle, the Fifth Circuit finally addressed Daniels’ argument a second time following remand from the Supreme Court. This time, however, the Court had binding § 922(g)(3) precedent to follow–Connelly. Following the holding established in Connelly, the Fifth Circuit noted that it must find Daniels’ § 922(g)(3) conviction unconstitutional as applied to Daniels unless the government could show that Daniels was disarmed for reasons beyond occasional marijuana usage. 

However, Connelly and Daniels differed both in facts and procedural posture. Daniels had already proceeded to a jury trial and been convicted, unlike Connelly whose charges were dismissed prior to trial. As such, the Fifth Circuit looked to the jury instructions to determine whether Daniels’ conviction was constitutional. 

At trial, the jury was instructed that in order to find Daniels was an “unlawful user” it need not find “that he used the controlled substance at the precise time he possessed the firearm” because “[s]uch use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before.” Instead, the jury was told only that it needed to find “that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct.” 

According to the Fifth Circuit, “[t]his language dooms Daniels’s conviction.” That is because the jury did not need to find that Daniels had used marijuana even within several weeks of possessing a firearm to convict him under the instructions provided. This is precisely the language Connelly held could not support an indictment. Nonetheless, the Fifth Circuit held that the government could still re-prosecute Daniels under a theory consistent with the Second Amendment. Accordingly, Daniels’ conviction was reversed and the case remanded to the district court for further proceedings. 

Whether the government decides to re-prosecute Daniels remains to be seen. However, if it does, the government will have to meet a higher burden of proof than it did in the first trial.  

If you are looking for experienced federal criminal defense attorneys knowledgeable in federal appeals and recent changes in law, contact the lawyers at Evergreen Attorneys today. We can be reached at (303) 948-1489 or by e-mail at [email protected].