Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION 5:22-cr-00086
07-27-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ERIC I. DAY
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
FRANK W. VOLK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On September 28, 2022, the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, denied Defendant Eric Day's Bruen-Based Motion to Dismiss the indictment. [Doc. 38]. Mr. Day timely objected to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn's Order on October 4, 2022. [Doc. 40]. The matter is ready for adjudication.
I.
On April 19, 2022, a grand jury returned a single count indictment against Mr. Day, charging him with being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). [Doc. 1]. Mr. Day moved to dismiss the indictment on August 8, 2022. [Doc. 25]. The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn. [See Doc. 17].
Mr. Day contends the felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), is unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022). [Doc. 25]. He asserts the Second Amendment textually covers his conduct. He further asserts the Government cannot meet its burden of showing § 922(g)(1) is consistent with this Nation's history. Id. The Government disputes whether the Second Amendment protects Mr. Day's conduct; it contends § 922(g)(1) is consistent with our history of firearm regulation. [Doc. 27].
Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn denied Mr. Day's motion. [Doc. 38]. While he stated that “it is debatable that such restrictions enjoy a ‘longstanding history' in this Nation,” id. at 6, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn ultimately concluded that Bruen had no impact on § 922(g)(1), id. at 8. Mr. Day objects to this conclusion on five grounds. [Doc. 40]. Specifically, he contends (1) Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn failed to find the “law abiding citizen construct” integral to the analysis “expressly rejected by Bruen,” id. at 1; (2) his conduct is covered by the Second Amendment, id. at 1-2; (3) the Government failed to establish § 922(g)(1) is consistent with this nation's tradition of firearm regulation, id. at 2; (4) Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn improperly relied on language from the concurring opinions in Bruen, id; and (5) Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn's suggestion that applying Bruen to “any provision of the Gun Control Act would produce ‘absurd results'” is inapposite, see id. The Government maintains that Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn properly analyzed § 922(g)(1) under the Bruen framework. [Doc. 44].
II.
Where, as here, a defendant moves to dismiss an indictment, “a judge may . . . designate a magistrate judge . . . to submit . . . proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition” of the motion. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b). The Court construes the Magistrate Judge's analysis as the required findings of fact and recommendation required under § 636(b)(1) (“PF&R”).
Upon the filing of a PF&R, the Court is required “to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. The Court need not review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Further, the Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
III.
Mr. Day's objections collapse into the singular assertion that Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn improperly applied Bruen. The Court previously considered Bruen's impact on § 922(g)(1) and joined those courts upholding the statute as constitutional. United States v. Manns, No. 5:22-CR-00066, 2023 WL 3121230 (S.D. W.Va. Apr. 27, 2023) (Volk, J.); see, e.g., United States v. Price, No. 2:22-cr-00097, 2022 WL 6968457 (S.D. W.Va. Oct. 12, 2022) (Goodwin, J.); United States v. Spencer, No. 2:22cr106, 2022 WL 17585782 (E.D. Va. Dec. 12, 2022); United States v. Dawson, No. 3:21-CR-00293-RJC-DCK, 2022 WL 17839807 (W.D. N.C. Dec. 21, 2022); see also United States v. Jackson, No. 22-2870, 2023 WL 3769242 (8th Cir. 2023) (denying an as-applied challenge). But see Range v. Att'y Gen., 69 F.4th 96 (3d Cir. 2023) (finding § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to appellant previously convicted of making false statements to obtain food stamps). Consistent with those decisions and the Supreme Court's guidance, the Court reiterates its conclusion that § 922(g)(1) does not run afoul of the Second Amendment.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Mr. Day's Objections [Doc. 40], ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 38], and DENIES Mr. Day's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 25].
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to transmit a copy of this written opinion and order to the Defendant and counsel, the United States Attorney, the United States Probation Office, and the United States Marshal Service.