Background
Donovan James Jackson pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina sentenced him to 33 months in prison.
In calculating Jackson’s sentence, the district court applied the base offense level in U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) because he possessed a semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine. Jackson argued on appeal that the district court should have interpreted “large capacity magazine” under Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo rather than deferring under Kisor v. Wilkie to the Sentencing Guidelines commentary defining the term.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed. It held that Kisor supplies the governing framework for deciding whether courts should defer to Sentencing Guidelines commentary. The court relied on its precedents in United States v. Boler and United States v. Holman, the latter of which deferred under Kisor to the commentary’s definition of a large-capacity magazine as one capable of accepting more than 15 rounds.
Because Jackson possessed a firearm with a magazine capable of accepting 17 rounds, the district court properly applied the challenged provision. The panel also held that the sentence was not an abuse of discretion and that any error in applying the provision would have been harmless because the district court said it would impose the same sentence without it and that sentence was substantively reasonable.
Key Takeaways
- Kisor remains the Fourth Circuit’s framework for determining whether to defer to Sentencing Guidelines commentary.
- A magazine capable of accepting 17 rounds falls within the commentary’s definition of a large-capacity magazine.
- An alleged Guidelines error may be harmless when the district court would impose the same substantively reasonable sentence under the alternative calculation.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision confirms that, in the Fourth Circuit, Loper Bright does not displace Kisor as the framework for evaluating Sentencing Guidelines commentary. It also reinforces the circuit’s acceptance of the commentary definition treating magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds as large-capacity magazines.
The alternative-sentence ruling illustrates how a district court can insulate a sentence from a disputed Guidelines calculation by clearly stating that it would impose the same sentence after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.