Case Explained: USA V. TAYLOR

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-08

Docket: 3:23-cr-00056-SI-1

The Ninth Circuit affirmed Myyeshia Taylor’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) but vacated her sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. The court applied de novo review to constitutional challenges, abuse of discretion review to Sentencing Guidelines applications, and plain error review to unpreserved claims of prosecutorial misconduct. Regarding the Sixth Amendment challenge, the court held that relying on acquitted conduct to apply the firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) does not violate the Constitution under current Ninth Circuit precedent, specifically *United States v. Mercado*, as Taylor failed to identify any intervening higher authority inconsistent with that ruling. The court also rejected a Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g), noting it is foreclosed by the en banc decision in *United States v. Duarte*. The sentence was vacated because the district court failed to make express findings on all three prongs required for an obstruction of justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 based on perjury: false testimony, materiality, and willful intent. While the district court found Taylor testified falsely regarding expungement, it did not explicitly find that she acted with the “willful intent to obstruct justice” or explain the basis for inferring such intent from her testimony timing. The court cited *United States v. Castro-Ponce* and *United States v. Williams*, requiring independent determinations of each element for appellate review. The court rejected Taylor’s remaining claims of plain error regarding prosecutorial misconduct. It found that comments about her post-arrest silence and testimony implying she lied about a jacket did not affect her substantial rights because the comments were minimal, the jury was promptly instructed to disregard inferences from silence, and other evidence strongly suggested her statements were untruthful. Similarly, the court determined that the prosecutor’s comments denigrating defense counsel during closing arguments fell within the bounds of normal advocacy and did not constitute reversible error. As a practical consequence, Taylor’s conviction stands, but she must undergo a new sentencing hearing where the district court must make explicit factual findings regarding willful intent if it chooses to apply the obstruction of justice enhancement.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.