The Government relies on two cases in which we rejected arguments that a district court did not realize its authority to vary categorically from the stolen-firearm enhancement for policy reasons. See United States v. Moore, 372 F. App'x 576 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. Rolack, 362 F. App'x 460 (6th Cir. 2010). Like Montague, the defendants in Moore and Rolack relied heavily on Judge Weinstein's opinion in United States v. Handy, 570 F. Supp. 2d 437 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), which invalidated the strict-liability component of the stolen-firearm enhancement largely on policy grounds.
But numerous courts, including the Sixth Circuit, have expressly and repeatedly rejected this same challenge. See United States v. Santillan, 458 F. App'x 253, 254 (4th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases); United States v. Murphy, 96 F.3d 846, 848-849 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that the stolen firearm enhancement does not violate due process); United States v. Moore, 372 F. App'x 576, 578-579 (6th Cir. 2010) (same). Accordingly, the Court does not find this claim persuasive.
However, the two level enhancement was applicable regardless of whether the petitioner knew or did not know that the firearm he possessed had been stolen. United States v. Moore, 372 Fed.Appx. 576,577 (6th Cir.2010). Therefore, this claim has no merit.