Background
A jury convicted Rashad Laroy Ebron of unlawfully possessing a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Police officers pursuing Ebron for traffic violations saw a loaded firearm in plain view on the driver’s-side floorboard of the car he had been driving alone. Ebron immediately exited and locked the car, denied having its keys or his identification, and was later found carrying both.
Ebron’s sister owned the car and firearm. She testified that she had left the gun under her seat earlier that day. The district court sentenced Ebron to 48 months in prison after assigning a base offense level of 20 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A), based on a prior Virginia conviction for using a firearm in the commission of a robbery.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed Ebron’s conviction. Binding circuit precedent foreclosed his facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1). The court also found no plain error in the jury’s determination that Ebron constructively possessed the firearm. Because Ebron did not renew his Rule 29 motion after presenting evidence or after the verdict, his sufficiency challenge was reviewable only for a manifest miscarriage of justice, treated as plain-error review.
The evidence permitted a rational juror to infer that Ebron knew about and controlled the firearm: he was the car’s driver and sole occupant, the loaded gun was plainly visible near him, he immediately locked the vehicle, and he withheld the keys and identification from officers. The court nevertheless vacated his sentence. Under the intervening decision in United States v. Scott, neither Virginia robbery nor Virginia Code § 18.2-53.1, separately or together, has the required force element to qualify as a crime of violence for the Guidelines enhancement. The district court therefore procedurally erred by using a base offense level of 20.
Key Takeaways
- Fourth Circuit precedent continues to foreclose facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1) in circumstances like Ebron’s.
- A driver’s sole occupancy, a firearm in plain view, and conduct suggesting an attempt to prevent police access can support constructive possession.
- A defendant who presents evidence after a denied Rule 29 motion must renew the motion to preserve an ordinary sufficiency challenge.
- A Virginia conviction for using a firearm in the commission of robbery does not support the crime-of-violence enhancement applied under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A).
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision illustrates the substantial difficulty of overturning a firearm conviction on sufficiency grounds when the defendant failed to preserve the issue and circumstantial evidence supports knowledge and control. It also confirms the sentencing consequences of Scott for defendants whose Guidelines calculations rely on Virginia robbery and Virginia Code § 18.2-53.1 convictions.