Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, an appellant challenged his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of a firearm, arguing that the statute exceeded Congress' Commerce Clause authority, that he deserved a sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility, and that he was denied his right to allocution. The court upheld the conviction, affirming the statute's validity by emphasizing the minimal jurisdictional nexus required, consistent with existing interpretations that the firearm merely needs to have been in interstate commerce. The court dismissed the appellant's call for an en banc review, maintaining that the statute regulates activities substantially affecting interstate commerce. Further, the court denied a sentencing reduction, noting the appellant's lack of initial admission and insincere remorse. The court found no violation of the appellant's allocution rights, as he had ample opportunity to speak before sentencing. The decision was designated as not suitable for publication, restricting its citation in future cases per Ninth Circuit rules.
Legal Issues Addressed
Acceptance of Responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found no error in denying a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility due to the appellant's lack of admission prior to trial and insincere expressions of remorse.
Reasoning: The district court did not err in denying Ohman a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.
Non-Publication and Citation of Court Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision in this case was declared not suitable for publication and limited in its citation under the Ninth Circuit rules.
Reasoning: The decision was affirmed and declared not suitable for publication, limiting its citation in future cases under 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Right to Allocution under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3)(C)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed that the appellant's right to allocution was observed, as he was given ample opportunity to speak before sentencing, and there was no requirement for a formal, lengthy dialogue.
Reasoning: Ohman was granted his right to allocution prior to sentencing, as mandated by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3)(C).
Scope of Congressional Authority under the Commerce Clausesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the validity of the felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), asserting that the requirement for a minimal jurisdictional nexus is sufficient, meaning the firearm must have been in interstate commerce at some point.
Reasoning: The felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), requires only a minimal jurisdictional nexus, meaning the firearm must have been in interstate commerce at some point.
Substantial Effect on Interstate Commercesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court rejected the appellant's argument for en banc review and held that the activity regulated by § 922(g) could be categorized as substantially affecting interstate commerce.
Reasoning: The court clarifies that the regulated activity under § 922(g) can be categorized as substantially affecting interstate commerce, which supports the statute's applicability.