United States v. Nolan – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting constitutional challenges to the firearms statute and finding no error in the sentencing guidelines calculation.
Standard: abuse of discretion; clear error
Vote: Unpublished per curiam opinion affirming the judgment.
Practical effect: The decision reinforces existing Fourth Circuit precedent barring Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges to felon-in-possession convictions and confirms the application of Virginia's endangerment standard for sentencing enhancements.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence of a defendant charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court rejected constitutional challenges to the statute and found no error in the district court's sentencing calculation.

Background

Michael A. Nolan pled guilty without a plea agreement to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Section nine hundred twenty-two of Title eighteen. The district court sentenced Nolan to sixty-three months in prison. On appeal, Nolan raised constitutional challenges to his conviction and challenged the procedural reasonableness of his sentence.

The court’s reasoning

The court held that Nolan’s constitutional challenges to his conviction were foreclosed by circuit precedent, specifically United States versus Canada and United States versus Hunt. Regarding the sentence, the court reviewed the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines for clear error. The court found that the district court correctly applied Virginia law, which does not require proof that human life was actually endangered, only that it could have been. The court concluded that the evidence supported the finding that Nolan’s conduct could have put occupants in peril.

Section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional because it has a plainly legitimate sweep and may constitutionally be applied in at least some set of circumstances

United States v. Canada, 123 F.4th 159, 161 (4th Cir. 2024)

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces existing Fourth Circuit precedent barring Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges to felon-in-possession convictions and confirms the application of Virginia’s endangerment standard for sentencing enhancements.