Tyreic Brewer was charged with two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). The underlying facts involved two separate incidents in 2023 and 2024 where Brewer, a convicted felon, was found with a stolen 9-millimeter pistol and suspected drugs. In the first incident, Brewer hid the firearm and drugs in a car trunk after being spotted by police. In the second, officers found the same type of firearm under the seat where Brewer was a passenger in a Lyft. Brewer pleaded guilty but appealed, arguing the statute was unconstitutional and his sentence was unreasonable. The district court imposed a 60-month sentence, a variance above the advisory guideline range of 37 to 46 months, citing the frequency of his offenses and his history of obstructing justice by attempting to influence a witness.
The Eleventh Circuit addressed two primary issues. First, regarding the constitutionality of the statute, the court applied a two-step review but found the outcome foreclosed by binding precedent. Brewer argued that recent Supreme Court cases, specifically United States v. Rahimi and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, had changed the landscape regarding felon disarmament. The court clarified that neither case abrogated its 2010 decision in United States v. Rozier, which held that Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional. The court stated it requires 'clearer instruction from the Supreme Court' before reconsidering this settled law, and thus Brewer's Second Amendment challenge failed. Second, the court reviewed the sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness. On the procedural claim, the court applied plain error review because Brewer did not object to the specific factor at sentencing. Brewer argued the judge improperly relied on his juvenile record as evidence of disrespect for the law. The court found no plain error, noting the district judge explicitly identified the 'biggest driver' of the sentence as the two recent offenses and adult convictions involving flight from police, not juvenile conduct. On substantive reasonableness, the court affirmed the variance. It held that the district court acted within its discretion by assigning significant weight to the aggravating circumstance of Brewer committing two separate felon-in-possession crimes in a short period. The court also noted the judge properly considered mitigating factors like Brewer's age and remorse, which prevented an even higher sentence. The final sentence of 60 months was well below the statutory maximum of 30 years, placing it within the 'ballpark of permissible outcomes.'
Brewer's convictions and 60-month sentence remain in effect. The decision reinforces the Eleventh Circuit's stance that felon disarmament statutes are immune to Second Amendment challenges absent a direct Supreme Court ruling overturning Rozier. Practically, it signals that sentencing courts in the circuit may impose upward variances for defendants with repeated firearm offenses and obstruction of justice, even if they are young, provided the court explicitly ties the variance to permissible factors like the nature of the offense and the need for deterrence.