John Miguel Swan was arrested in 2020 after police found a loaded 9mm pistol magazine in his pocket while executing a felony warrant for domestic assault. He pleaded guilty to possessing ammunition as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). However, Swan later attempted to withdraw his plea, claiming his counsel had misled him about jury composition and that the statute was unconstitutional following the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen. The Tenth Circuit previously vacated his conviction in a prior appeal, Swan I, solely because the plea was not voluntary due to the counsel's misrepresentation regarding the jury. On remand, the district court denied Swan's motion to dismiss the indictment, rejecting his Second Amendment challenge based on the prior panel's reasoning in Swan I and its precedent in Vincent v. Garland. Swan was subsequently tried, found guilty, and sentenced to 120 months in prison, the statutory maximum, based on his history of domestic violence and prior felonies. He now appeals both his conviction and sentence.
The court addressed two primary issues: the constitutionality of the conviction and the reasonableness of the sentence. First, regarding the Second Amendment challenge, the court applied the law-of-the-case doctrine. In the previous appeal (Swan I), the panel explicitly noted that while it vacated the conviction on procedural grounds, it was bound by its precedent in Vincent v. Garland to reject any argument that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under Bruen. The court determined that Footnote 7 in Swan I was not mere dicta but a binding decision on the legal innocence argument, as Swan had expressly invited the court to address the statute's constitutionality. The court explained that Vincent I, reaffirmed in Vincent III, forecloses the position that the felon-in-possession statute is unconstitutional for any convicted felon possessing a firearm or ammunition. Second, regarding the sentence, the court reviewed the 120-month term for substantive reasonableness. Swan argued the sentence was unreasonable because it relied on unproven allegations of domestic violence unrelated to the charge. The court found no abuse of discretion, noting the district judge primarily relied on adjudicated convictions for domestic violence, with only one unadjudicated incident considered after finding it trustworthy. The court distinguished this case from United States v. Allen, where uncharged conduct was unrelated to the crime of conviction. Here, the history of domestic violence was directly relevant to the risk Swan posed and the need for incapacitation. The court also rejected the claim of unwarranted sentencing disparities, noting Swan failed to provide sufficient data to show he was similarly situated to other defendants who received lower sentences.
The decision reaffirms the Tenth Circuit's precedent that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) remains constitutional for all convicted felons, including those possessing only ammunition, under the Bruen framework. It clarifies that the law-of-the-case doctrine prevents relitigating Second Amendment challenges once a panel has addressed them in a prior appeal of the same case. Additionally, the ruling confirms that sentencing courts may impose significant upward variances in felon-in-possession cases when a defendant has a documented history of domestic violence, treating such history as a critical factor for incapacitation and public safety.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download