Antoine v. U.S.
| Docket Number | Crim. Action 1:18-CR-17-1,Civil Action 1:22-CV-145 |
| Decision Date | 29 August 2023 |
| Parties | AMANZE ANTOINE, Petitioner, v. USA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On November 18, 2022, Amanze Antoine (“petitioner”) through counsel, filed a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody [Civil Action Number 1:22-CV-145 Doc. 1; Criminal Action Number 1:18-CR-17-1 Doc. 382].[1] On February 3, 2023, the Government filed a Response in opposition to the Motion. [Doc. 387]. On February 23, 2023, petitioner filed a Reply. [Doc. 392]. The matter is currently pending before the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to LR PL P 2. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that the District Judge deny and dismiss petitioner's motion.
On March 6, 2018, the United States Attorney filed the initial Indictment in Antoine's case. On June 19, 2018, a Superseding Indictment was filed, charging petitioner with: Count One, conspiracy to violate Federal firearm laws in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(2); Count Two, conspiracy to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(C); Count Three: illegal transportation in state of residency of a firearm acquired outside state of residency in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(3) and 924(a)(1)(D); and Count Four, unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Following a jury trial, Antoine was found guilty of Counts One, Two, and Four, and not guilty of Count Three. On March 27, 2019, petitioner appeared before Judge Keeley and was sentenced to a total term of 120 months imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release.
On August 30, 2021, petitioner filed a notice of appeal. Petitioner raised two issues on appeal. First, that in light of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019) his conviction under § 922(g) should be vacated. Rehaif clarified that in a prosecution under § 922(g) and § 924(a)(2), the Government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm. Antoine argued that his conviction should be vacated because the Government did not present evidence that he knew he was a convicted felon and that the district court had instructed the jury that it was not necessary for the Government to prove such. However, because these arguments were not raised in this Court, the Fourth Circuit reviewed these claims for plain error and found that he could not establish that the error affected his substantial rights because he had not shown that he would have presented evidence that he did not know he was a felon. Second, Antoine argued that the district court erred in voir dire questioning of a prospective juror; the Fourth Circuit concluded that “based on the totality of the record [] Antoine cannot show that the juror was biased or that her service as a juror in his case affected his substantial rights.” [Doc. 363 at 4].
On November 18, 2022, petitioner filed the instant petition.[2] In his petition, Antoine challenges his convictions of Count One, conspiracy to violate Federal firearm laws in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(2); and Count Four, unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), arguing that they are unconstitutional following the Supreme Court's New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022). First, he argues that 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6), 922(g)(1), and 924(a)(2) are facially unconstitutional because they are not consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Second, he argues that even if the statutes are not facially unconstitutional, they are unconstitutional as applied to Antoine because the conduct underlying his predicate felony is constitutionally protected.
In response, the Government argues, first, that § 922(g)(1) is presumptively lawful under Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent and, second, that there is a “longstanding tradition” of prohibiting firearm possession by persons deemed dangerous by the Government.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a prisoner may file a motion challenging the sentence imposed by a federal court, “if (1) the sentence violates the Constitution or laws of the United States; (2) the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction to impose the sentence; (3) the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; or (4) the sentence ‘is otherwise subject to collateral attack.'” Beyle v. United States, 269 F.Supp.3d 716, 725 (E.D. Va. 2017) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a)). “A sentence is ‘otherwise subject to collateral attack,' if a petitioner shows that the proceedings suffered from ‘a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.'” Id. (quoting United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185 (1979)). “A petitioner bears the burden of proving one of those grounds by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (citing Miller v. United States, 261 F.2d 546, 547 (4th Cir. 1958)). “If he satisfies that burden, the court may vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b)). “However, if the motion, when viewed against the record, shows that the petitioner is entitled to no relief, the court may summarily deny the motion.” Id. (citing Raines v. United States, 423 F.2d 526, 529 (4th Cir. 1970)).
Prior to New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 2126 (2022), courts had applied a two-part test following the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). “Under that test, courts conducted a historical inquiry into whether a law regulated conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment, then conducted an intermediate scrutiny analysis to evaluate the fit between the law and the governmental objective.” United States v. Nutter, 624 F.Supp.3d 636, 639-40 (S.D. W.Va. 2022) (citing United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673, 680-83 (4th Cir. 2010)). In Bruen, the Court found that the two-step approach “is one step too many”:
Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's “unqualified command.” Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal., 366 U.S. 36, 50, n. 10, 81 S.Ct. 997, 6 L.Ed.2d 105 (1961).
Bruen, 142 S.Ct. at 2126 (2022) (footnote omitted).
Since the Bruen opinion, courts in this district and elsewhere have seen a number of challenges to § 922(g)(1), with this Court and others upholding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) and similar sections. See United States v. Doty, No. 5:21-CR-21, 2022 WL 17492260 (N.D. W.Va. Sept. 9, 2022) (Bailey, J.) (); United States v. Medrano, No. 3:21-CR-39, 2023 WL 122650 (N.D. W.Va. Jan. 6, 2023) (Groh, J.) (same); United States v. Coleman, No. 3:22-CR-8-2, 2023 WL 122401, at *1 (N.D. W.Va. Jan. 6, 2023) (Groh, J.) (same); United States v. Nutter, 624 F.Supp.3d 636 (S.D. W.Va. 2022) (Berger, J.) (); United States v. Gould, No. 2:22-CR-00095, 2023 WL 3295597 (Johnston, J.) (); United States v. Hughes, No. 2:22-CR-00640-DCN-1, 2023 WL 4205226 (D.S.C. June 27, 2023) (Norton, J.) (collecting cases).
Indeed, the holding in Bruen does not disturb the constitutionality of the prohibition on felons possessing firearms because the Court's decision is based upon a recognition of the rights of “law abiding” citizens. Larch v. United States, No. 1:18-CR-00146-MRWCM-1, 2023 WL 3081292, at *3 (W.D. N.C. Apr. 24, 2023) (Reidinger, C.J.) (appeal pending) (citing United States v. Mahin, 668 F.3d 119, 123 (4th Cir. 2012) and Bruen, 142 S.Ct. at 2156).
To continue reading
Request your trial