Background
Mykael Booker participated in a cocaine-trafficking conspiracy. After intercepted calls led law enforcement to believe he might threaten or shoot someone who owed him drug money, officers located him in an apartment. Booker remained inside for six hours while officers obtained a warrant and made additional statements about his guns. A search uncovered cocaine base, drug paraphernalia, an empty pistol box, and ammunition. Investigators later learned that Booker had transferred his guns to a woman before his arrest.
Booker pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute, and being a felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced him to 180 months in prison. On appeal, Booker argued for the first time that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to him under the Second Amendment.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Because Booker did not raise his constitutional challenge in the district court—even though the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen before his sentencing and he could have sought to withdraw his plea—the court reviewed only for plain error.
Applying circuit precedent permitting § 922(g)(1) to be enforced against dangerous people, the court held that Booker failed to show he was not dangerous. His multiple drug-trafficking convictions, second-degree home-invasion conviction, commission of the current offense while on probation for drug trafficking, and extensive history of convictions and noncompliance with court requirements established dangerousness. The court rejected his contention that dangerousness required violent conduct and found no need to remand for a district-court inquiry because his individualized, undisputed criminal history already demonstrated dangerousness.
Because Booker did not establish a Second Amendment violation, much less plain error, the court also found no basis for his derivative challenge to the 15-year sentencing mandate in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).
Key Takeaways
- A defendant who had an opportunity to raise a post-Bruen Second Amendment challenge before sentencing but did not do so receives plain-error review on appeal.
- Under Sixth Circuit precedent, drug trafficking and burglary-related convictions can establish dangerousness even without proof that the defendant personally engaged in violent conduct.
- An appellate court need not remand for an initial dangerousness determination when an individualized, undisputed criminal record itself demonstrates dangerousness.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the Sixth Circuit’s framework for as-applied Second Amendment challenges to the federal felon-in-possession statute: § 922(g)(1) remains constitutional when applied to defendants whose criminal histories demonstrate dangerousness. Defendants bear the burden of showing that they are not actually dangerous.
It also emphasizes the procedural consequences of failing to preserve a Bruen-based challenge. When a defendant could have raised the issue in the district court, even after pleading guilty, the more demanding plain-error standard applies on appeal.