Eddie Nailor, a defendant with a substantial state criminal record, was convicted in federal court for possessing a firearm as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His prior record includes a guilty plea to marijuana possession and a nolo contendere plea to armed robbery, where an accomplice held a gun to a victim's head. He also committed subsequent offenses including carrying concealed weapons and possession of ammunition by a felon. In December 2022, Nailor was stopped by police while driving a vehicle with a Sig Sauer 9mm pistol in plain sight, a bottle of alcohol between his legs, and marijuana in the console. After a traffic stop, officers recovered the firearm and arrested Nailor, who had previously resisted removal from the vehicle. Nailor moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the statute was unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to him. The district court denied the motion, and Nailor subsequently pleaded guilty without a plea agreement, receiving a 37-month sentence before appealing to the Sixth Circuit.
The Sixth Circuit, writing through Judge Siler, addressed Nailor's challenges in two parts. First, regarding the facial challenge, the court noted that Nailor never raised a facial challenge in the district court, only an as-applied one. Because the issue was raised for the first time on appeal, the court applied plain-error review. Under this standard, reversal requires an error that is plain, affects substantial rights, and seriously affects the fairness of judicial proceedings. The court found Nailor could not meet this burden because binding precedent, specifically United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637 (6th Cir. 2024), had already established that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional on its face. The court stated, 'we are in no position to second-guess binding precedent.' Second, the court analyzed the as-applied challenge under the framework set forth in Williams. The Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and the government may constitutionally apply § 922(g)(1) to dangerous felons. The burden rests on the defendant to show they are not dangerous. The court found that Nailor's armed robbery conviction provided strong evidence of dangerousness, noting that robbery is 'at least strong evidence that an individual is dangerous, if not totally dispositive.' Nailor argued that his nolo contendere plea meant he did not admit guilt and that he was young at the time. The court rejected this, citing United States v. Morton, which allows courts to consider how an offense was committed, not just the fact of conviction. The record showed Nailor participated in robbing a person at gunpoint, which is 'patently dangerous.' Furthermore, Nailor's subsequent criminal conduct, including the instant offense while on probation, demonstrated a lack of reform. The court also clarified that marijuana possession charges are irrelevant to the dangerousness inquiry given the severity of the armed robbery. Finally, the court addressed Nailor's request for remand to apply Williams, which was decided after the district court's ruling. The court denied the remand, stating that 'in cases where the district court rejected a defendant's as-applied challenge… prior to Williams, we have repeatedly found that remand is unnecessary if the evidence in the record shows that the defendant is dangerous.'
The decision reaffirms the Sixth Circuit's application of United States v. Williams, confirming that defendants with armed robbery convictions face a high bar in challenging felon-in-possession statutes. It establishes that courts may consider the specific circumstances of a crime, such as the use of a gun during a robbery, to determine dangerousness, even if the defendant entered a nolo contendere plea. The ruling also clarifies that remand is not required when the record already contains sufficient evidence of dangerousness to satisfy the Williams test, streamlining the process for similar cases where the district court ruled before Williams was decided.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download