Background
Jordan Austin Estermann pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of federal law. He was sentenced to one hundred months in prison by the district court. Estermann appealed, arguing the conviction was unconstitutional and the sentence was procedurally erroneous due to a failure to adjust for a concurrent state sentence.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that the Second Amendment challenge to the statute was foreclosed by binding precedent. Regarding the sentencing, the court found the district court failed to make an explicit finding on whether the state robbery conviction was relevant conduct. The record was unclear on whether the court varied from the guidelines or would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the interpretation. The court concluded that a remand was necessary to clarify the district court’s reasoning.
The longstanding prohibition on possession of firearms by felons is constitutional.
United States v. Cunningham, 114 F.4th 671, 675 (8th Cir. 2024)
What it means going forward
Defendants in the Eighth Circuit facing similar sentencing issues must ensure the district court explicitly addresses relevant conduct and makes clear findings when considering adjustments for undischarged state imprisonment.