United States v. Dajuan Martin

In United States v. Dajuan Martin, —-F.4th —-, No. 23-30917 (5th Cir. Oct. 15, 2024), the Fifth Circuit upheld the defendant’s sentence enhancement for using a firearm with a large capacity magazine, under USSG § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) & cmt. n.2. Nevertheless, the court vacated the sentence because the written judgment included supervised-release restrictions that the district judge had not orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing.

Legal Background: Under USSG § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B), a defendant will receive a higher Sentencing Guidelines base offense level if the offense “involved a semiautomatic firearm that is capable of accepting a large capacity magazine.” The Guideline itself does not define “large capacity,” but the Guidelines commentary does: it means a magazine capable of accepting 15 or more rounds. § 2K2.1 cmt. n.2.

Issue 1: Was it error for the district court to rely on the commentary’s definition of “large capacity magazine”? No.

The Supreme Court has held that Guidelines commentary is “authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that guideline.” Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993). Martin argued here that the commentary’s definition of “large capacity” was inconsistent with a plain reading of that term. In his view, “large” refers to an “atypical size,” whereas magazines holding more than 15 rounds are not atypical.

The Ninth Circuit had already rejected that argument, holding that "the popularity of that firearm does not mean that a magazine that can accept more than fifteen rounds is not also a ‘large capacity magazine.’” United States v. Trumbull, 114 F.4th 1114, 1119 (9th Cir. 2024). Here, the Fifth Circuit agreed and held that the commentary’s definition does not “violat[e] the dictates” of the Guideline. Stinson, 508 U.S. at 43.

Finally, the Fifth Circuit also rejected Martin’s separation-of-powers argument, because the Supreme Court has already accepted the Sentencing Commission’s authority to issue commentary. See Stinson, 508 U.S. at 45.

Issue 2: Both parties agreed that the district court’s written judgment impermissibly broadened Martin’s supervised-release conditions, as compared to what the court had orally pronounced at sentencing. If “there is an actual conflict between the district court’s oral pronouncement of [the] sentence and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” United States v. Mireles, 471 F.3d 551, 557 (5th Cir. 2006). For that reason, the Fifth Circuit remanded for the written judgment to be amended to match the district court’s oral pronouncement of sentence.

Issue 3: Martin also challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), but the Fifth Circuit has “consistently upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1),” both before and since the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Ass., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).