United States v. Bramer
| Citation | 832 F.3d 908 |
| Decision Date | 11 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 15-3121,15-3121 |
| Parties | United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Todd Karl Bramer, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
832 F.3d 908
United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee
v.
Todd Karl Bramer, Defendant–Appellant.
No. 15-3121
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: May 31, 2016
Filed: August 11, 2016
Counsel who represented the appellant was Rick L. Ramstad of Sioux Falls, SD.
Counsel who represented the appellee was Constance K. Larson, AUSA, of Sioux Falls, SD.
Before SMITH, BEAM, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Todd Bramer pled guilty to one count of possession of firearms by a prohibited person—specifically, an unlawful user of a controlled substance—in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). In his written guilty plea, Bramer admitted to “knowingly possess[ing] firearms,” including two handguns and at least one other firearm, while “being an unlawful user of marijuana.” Bramer also waived the right to appeal all non-jurisdictional issues. On appeal from the district court,1 Bramer argues that § 922(g)(3), which makes it unlawful for “any person ... who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess a firearm, is unconstitutionally vague.
Bramer argues that § 922(g)(3) is facially2 unconstitutional, because the terms “unlawful user” of a controlled substance and “addicted to” a controlled substance are vague. Though we are inclined to think that this argument could be meritorious under the right factual circumstances, it fails here. Bramer's argument rests in large part on Johnson v. United States, –––U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), which applied a more expansive vagueness analysis than prior case law might have suggested. Before Johnson, we required defendants challenging the facial validity of a criminal statute to establish that “ ‘no set of circumstances exist[ed] under which the [statute] would be valid.’ ” United States v. Stephens, 594 F.3d 1033, 1037 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) ). Johnson, however, clarified that a vague criminal statute is not constitutional “merely because there is some conduct that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Hasson
......2020) ; United States v. Westbrooks , 858 F.3d 317, 325 (5th Cir. 2017), cert. granted & judgment vacated on other grounds , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1323, 200 L.Ed.2d 510 (2018) ; United States v. Cook , 970 F.3d 866, 877–878 (7th Cir. 2020) ; United States v. Bramer , 832 F.3d 908, 909 (8th Cir. 2016) ; Kashem , 941 F.3d at 376 (9th Cir.) ; 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis , 6 F.4th 1160, 1190 (10th Cir. 2021). Even if we were to view Johnson and Dimaya as instances in which the Court bypassed as-applied challenges to proceed directly to facial vagueness, ......
-
United States v. Stupka
...States v. Turner , 842 F.3d 602, 606 (8th Cir. 2016) ). Regarding Stupka's facial challenge, Judge Mahoney cites United States v. Bramer , 832 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2016), in recommending that the motion be denied. Doc. No. 68 at 3–4. In Bramer , the Eighth Circuit rejected the defendant's ......
-
United States v. Cook
...that it is not anything like the sort of problematic statute the Court confronted in Johnson . See United States v. Bramer , 832 F.3d 908, 909–10 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam); United States v. Edwards , 540 F.3d 1156, 1162 (10th Cir. 2008) ; United States v. Patterson , 431 F.3d 832, 836 (5......
-
People v. Superior Court
...[applying rule in rejecting facial vagueness challenge to deportation statute]; 34 Cal.App.5th 404 United States v. Bramer (8th Cir. 2016) 832 F.3d 908, 909 [applying rule in rejecting facial vagueness challenge to criminal statute]; Arrigoni Enterprises, LLC v. Town of Durham (2d Cir. 2015......
-
CRIMINAL TRESPASS AND COMPUTER CRIME.
...I, 676 F.3d at 862-63; see also Note, supra note 106, at 755. (111.) Note, supra note 106, at 768-70. (112.) See United States v. Bramer, 832 F.3d 908, 909 (8th Cir. 2016); State v. Parker, No. 45502-1-II, 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 2691, [paragraph] 15 (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 3, (113.) Kerr, supra......