United States v. Shaw
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION 22-1 (JEB) |
| Decision Date | 24 May 2023 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DANIEL SHAW, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Earlier this year after a guilty plea, this Court sentenced Defendant Daniel Shaw to a two-year term of probation for a misdemeanor conviction arising from his participation in the January 6 2021, insurrection at the United States Capitol. The Government now asks the Court to impose a condition restricting Shaw from accessing or possessing firearms during that period of probation. Although courts have struggled to determine when and how the Government may restrict the possession of firearms after the Supreme Court radically redrew the landscape in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022), the question presented here is far simpler. Because this Court finds a gun restriction both warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3563 and consistent with the Second Amendment, it will grant the Motion and impose such condition.
Shaw was among the rioters who entered the U.S. Capitol on January 6th and interrupted Congress's certification of the 2020 electoral-vote count. See ECF No. 29 (Statement of Offense). On November 17, 2022, he pled guilty to one misdemeanor count of Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building, in violation of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(G).
See ECF No. 28 (Plea Agreement). In its presentence report, the Probation Office recommended a sentence of probation subject to a set of standard conditions, which included a requirement that Shaw refrain from possessing or accessing firearms or other dangerous weapons. See ECF No. 35 (Presentence Report) at 14. The Court subsequently sentenced Shaw to 10 days' incarceration as part of a sentence of 24 months' probation. See ECF No. 40 (Judgment) at 3-4. Shaw objected to the firearms restriction at sentencing and, after hearing brief oral argument, the Court directed the Government to file a motion if it sought to impose that condition. See ECF No. 42 (Motion to Amend Judgment) at 2 (describing oral-argument colloquy); Minute Order of Mar. 23, 2023. That Government Motion, which Shaw opposed, is now ripe. See ECF No. 43 (Gov't Motion to Modify).
District courts have broad discretion to oversee a defendant's probation. See United States v. Feinberg, 631 F.2d 388, 391 (5th Cir. 1980) (citations omitted); see also Burns v. United States, 287 U.S. 216, 221-22 (1932) (discussing Court's discretion under prior version of relevant probation statute). In particular, district courts are “afforded wide discretion when imposing” probation terms and conditions. United States v. Legg, 713 F.3d 1129, 1131 (D.C. Cir. 2013); accord United States v. Accardi, 669 F.3d 340, 346 (D.C. Cir. 2012); United States v. Sullivan, 451 F.3d 884, 895 (D.C. Cir. 2006). While its discretion in supervising a probationer is cabined by the constitutional and statutory frameworks that the Court analyzes below, “fairness of the proceedings” is the primary concern. United States v. Davis, 748 Fed.Appx. 449, 452 (3d Cir. 2018) (citing United States v. Evers, 534 F.2d 1186, 1188 (5th Cir. 1976)).
Shaw offers two arguments as to why the Court should not impose the standard probation condition restricting his possession of firearms: the first is statutory, the second constitutional. The Court considers each in turn.
The parties first dispute whether or not a firearms restriction is warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3563, the statute governing probation conditions. That statute lists mandatory conditions that a court “shall” impose as part of a probation sentence, id., § 3563(a), as well as discretionary conditions that a court “may” impose as well. Id., § 3563(b). It authorizes courts to impose such discretionary conditions “to the extent that such conditions are reasonably related to” the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) and (a)(2) sentencing factors and “involve only such deprivations of liberty or property as are reasonably necessary” to serve the § 3553(a)(2) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b). Those sentencing factors require consideration of:
To determine whether a deprivation is reasonably necessary to serve those interests, our Circuit has instructed that district courts must “weigh the consequences for the defendant's liberty against any likely achievement of the statutory purposes.” United States v. Russell, 45 F.4th 436, 441 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (quoting United States v. Malenya, 736 F.3d 554, 559 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). In the supervised-release context, that means something akin to a “narrow tailoring requirement.” Malenya, 736 F.3d at 559-60 (quoting United States v. Holm, 326 F.3d 872, 877 (7th Cir. 2003)); see also United States v. Perazza-Mercado, 553 F.3d 65, 73 (1st Cir. 2009); United States v. Voelker, 489 F.3d 139, 144-45 (3d Cir. 2007).
Under the discretionary condition at issue here, 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(8), a district court may require that a probationer “refrain from possessing a firearm, destructive device, or other dangerous weapon.” Such a restriction would require Shaw to temporarily transfer any firearms in his possession to someone else, who could return them to Defendant at the conclusion of his probationary period. See Gov't Mot. to Modify at 2.
The Court first considers the extent to which a § 3563(b)(8) firearms restriction here would serve the § 3553(a) factors, and it then reviews whether promoting those sentencing goals is worth the intrusion on Shaw's liberty.
The § 3553(a) factors here strongly favor imposing a firearms restriction during Shaw's probation term for several reasons. See also, e.g., United States v. Juv. No. 1 (LWQ), 38 F.3d 470, 472-73 (9th Cir. 1994) ( how firearms restriction served § 3553 factors). First, the Court concludes that such a restriction appropriately reflects the seriousness of the offense as per § 3553(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A). Shaw's conviction derives from his participation in the January 6th insurrection at the United States Capitol. He was part of a violent mob that sought to stop the peaceful transfer of power by force. The nature of that event puts Shaw's offense very far from the types of negligent infractions that some circuits have held do not warrant a firearms restriction. See United States v. Voda, 994 F.2d 149, 153-54 (5th Cir. 1993) (); see also United States v. Warren, 186 F.3d 358, 367 (3d Cir. 1999) (); but see United States v. Jensen, 132 F.3d 41, 1997 WL 787384, at *1 (9th Cir. 1997) (). The Court accordingly concludes that, while Shaw's role in the mob was minor, the fact of his participation in an insurrection whose aim was to impair the peaceful transfer of power suggests that a firearms restriction during his probationary period is appropriate.
Second, such a restriction would help deter future criminal conduct, as contemplated by § 3553(a)(2)(B). The Court emphasizes here that Shaw was still serving a probationary sentence when he participated in the January 6th insurrection. On December 19, 2017, Defendant had been convicted in California state court of Child Cruelty (Possible Injury or Death) and Driving While Under the Influence. See Presentence Report at 7-8. He was sentenced to 90 days in jail and 48 months of probation - a probation period that he was still serving when he entered the Capitol on January 6th. Id., see also ECF No. 37 (Gov't Sentencing Memorandum) at 12. As Defendant has demonstrated a willingness to engage in criminal acts while on probation, the Court concludes that more restrictive probation conditions are particularly important as a deterrent here.
The relative brevity of Shaw's sentence and probation period, moreover, recommend such a restriction as a deterrent. “[W]hen . . . a district court selects a shorter term of imprisonment, it may correspondingly want to impose more restrictive [release conditions] . . . in order to achieve Section 3553(a)'s goals of deterrence and protection of the public.” Malenya, 736 F.3d at 564 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). In the Court's view, the relative brevity of Shaw's confinement - just ten days - justifies more restrictive probation conditions in order to serve as an adequate deterrent. See also Juv. No. 1 (LWQ), 38 F.3d at 472.
Third a firearms restriction would serve as an important aid to the Probation Office's oversight of Shaw and would thereby promote public safety per § 3553(a)(2)(C). As the Probation Office's manual on probation and supervised release describes, firearms restrictions are standard conditions because of the role they play in promoting public safety. See Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts Prob. & Pretrial Servs. Office, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial