Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION 23-94
12-15-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KEILEN HAWKINS
SECTION I
ORDER & REASONS
LANCE M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is defendant Keilen Hawkins' (“defendant”) motion to dismiss Count 1 of the indictment on the ground that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional pursuant to the Second Amendment as well as his motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the same basis. The government filed an opposition to his motion to dismiss the indictment. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies both motions.
R. Doc. No. 38.
R. Doc. No. 42.
R. Doc. No. 41.
I. BACKGROUND
The indictment charges defendant with knowingly possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8), which proscribe possessing a firearm after being convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. Count 1 was based on a prior conviction “on August 29, 2018 in the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Case Number 541-942 ‘B', for possession of a schedule III controlled dangerous substance, in violation of LA-R.S. 40:968.”
R. Doc. No. 1.
Id.
Defendant now moves to dismiss the indictment, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional pursuant to the Second Amendment. Defendant also moves to withdraw his guilty plea so that the Court may consider the issues raised in his motion to dismiss. The government opposes defendant's motion to dismiss, arguing that many courts have already rejected defendants' contention that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional.
R. Doc. No. 38, at 1.
R. Doc. No. 42-1, at 1.
R. Doc. No. 41.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person . . . who has been convicted in any court of [ ] a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year [ ] to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”
Prior to sentencing, the court may exercise its discretion to grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea if the defendant presents a “fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B); see also United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343 (5th Cir. 1984). The Court should consider:
(1) whether or not the defendant has asserted his innocence; (2) whether or not the government would suffer prejudice if the withdrawal motion were granted; (3) whether or not the defendant has delayed in filing his withdrawal motion; (4) whether or not the withdrawal would substantially inconvenience the court; (5) whether or not close assistance of counsel was available; (6) whether or not the original plea
was knowing and voluntary; and (7) whether or not the withdrawal would waste judicial resources.United States v. Hughes, 726 F.3d 656 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984)). These factors, known as the Carr factors, “are considered for the totality of the circumstances, and the district court is not required to make a finding as to each individual factor.” United States v. McKnight, 570 F.3d 641, 646 (5th Cir. 2009).
Defendant seeks to withdraw his guilty plea only so that the Court may consider his argument that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional. This Court recently addressed the arguments raised by defendant regarding whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen and the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in United States v. Rahimi. See United States v. Bazile, No. CR 23-34, 2023 WL 7112833 (E.D. La. Oct. 27, 2023) (Africk, J.). The Court adopts the reasoning set forth in that opinion and reaffirms that “Bruen did not disturb binding Fifth Circuit precedent regarding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and, even if it did, . . . the authority to determine whether the Fifth Circuit's pre-Bruen precedent regarding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) has been overturned by an intervening change in the law lies with the Fifth Circuit alone.” Id. at *4 (quoting United States v. Thompson, No. CR 22-173, 2023 WL 3159617, at *5 (E.D. La. Apr. 27, 2023) (Ashe, J.)). Additionally, “Rahimi had no occasion to address the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1), nor did it purport to do so.” Id. (quoting Thompson, No. CR 22-173, 2023 WL 3159617, at *4). Therefore, the Court rejects defendants' arguments regarding the alleged unconstitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) pursuant to the Second Amendment.
R. Doc. No. 42-1, at 1.
142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022).
61 F.4th 443 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. granted, No. 22-915, 143 S.Ct. 2688 (2023).
After considering the Carr factors and in light of the Court's previous holding regarding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the Court finds that there is no “fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal” of defendant's guilty plea. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B).
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment and his motion to withdraw his guilty plea are DENIED.