Derek Steven Trumbull pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). During his arrest, officers found him with a Glock 17 loaded with a seventeen-round magazine, along with spare magazines holding seventeen and eighteen rounds. The Probation Office calculated his sentencing range using an enhancement for possessing a semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a large capacity magazine. Trumbull did not dispute the facts but challenged the legal interpretation, arguing that the Sentencing Commission's commentary defining a large capacity magazine as holding more than fifteen rounds was invalid under the Supreme Court's decision in Kisor v. Wilkie.
The panel addressed whether the Sentencing Commission's commentary warrants deference under Kisor v. Wilkie. The court first determined that the term 'large capacity magazine' is ambiguous because 'large' is a relative term that admits of degree, similar to the term 'minimize' in Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper. The court found that the structure and history of the Guidelines did not resolve this uncertainty. Second, the court held that Application Note 2's definition of more than fifteen rounds is a reasonable interpretation, noting that it falls within the range of definitions used by various states and Congress. Third, the court found that the commentary meets the markers for deference: it represents the Commission's official position, implicates its substantive expertise in sentencing policy, and was the product of fair and considered judgment after public comment. A concurrence by Judge Bea argued that the term was not genuinely ambiguous and that courts should interpret it independently, concluding that a seventeen-round magazine unambiguously qualifies as large under traditional tools of construction, but he agreed with the judgment.
The decision affirms the use of the fifteen-round threshold for sentencing enhancements in the Ninth Circuit for felon-in-possession cases. It clarifies that courts must defer to the Sentencing Commission's commentary on this issue unless the term is genuinely unambiguous. The ruling leaves open the question of whether other relative terms in the Guidelines might similarly require deference, while establishing that the Commission's specific numeric interpretation of 'large' is valid.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download