Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Chadin Derron Kelly pleaded guilty in the Northern District of Texas to possessing a firearm after a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court applied an enhanced base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) and imposed an above-guidelines sentence of 121 months of imprisonment.
Kelly appealed on two grounds: (1) that the district court erred in calculating the applicable guidelines range by applying the enhancement, and (2) that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied, raising both Commerce Clause and Second Amendment challenges — arguments he conceded were foreclosed by existing Fifth Circuit precedent.
The Court’s Holding
A per curiam panel of Judges King, Haynes, and Ho affirmed the district court’s judgment on both issues. On the sentencing guidelines question, the court assumed without deciding that the district court erred in applying the enhancement, but held the error harmless. The record showed the district court had independently weighed the statutory maximum and articulated its reasons for the above-guidelines sentence in both oral findings and a written statement of reasons, satisfying the standard set out in United States v. Redmond, 965 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2020), and United States v. Ibarra-Luna, 628 F.3d 712 (5th Cir. 2010).
On the constitutional challenges, the court held both arguments foreclosed by circuit precedent. The Commerce Clause challenge was foreclosed by United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 1996), and United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013). The Second Amendment challenge was foreclosed by United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025).
Key Takeaways
- A guidelines calculation error is harmless where the district court’s record — including its stated reasons, consideration of the statutory maximum, and written statement of reasons — demonstrates the sentence would have been the same regardless of the error.
- Fifth Circuit precedent continues to foreclose both Commerce Clause and Second Amendment facial and as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1), the federal felon-in-possession statute.
- The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Diaz (2025) leaves the Fifth Circuit’s Second Amendment framework for § 922(g)(1) intact for now.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision reinforces that defendants sentenced above the guidelines range face a high bar in demonstrating reversible sentencing error, particularly when the district court has clearly articulated independent reasons for the variance. Even a conceded guidelines miscalculation will not require resentencing if the appellate court is convinced the outcome would be unchanged.
The case also illustrates the continued vitality of pre-Bruen Fifth Circuit precedent upholding § 922(g)(1) against constitutional attack. Despite ongoing litigation nationally over the Second Amendment’s reach following New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the Fifth Circuit’s Diaz decision — now cert.-denied — remains the controlling authority in the circuit, and panels continue to treat such challenges as foreclosed.