Background
Tyshaun Maurice McCollum pleaded guilty in 2022 to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924. The district court sentenced him to 46 months in prison.
On appeal, McCollum challenged the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment. He also disputed a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense. With the enhancement, his advisory Guidelines range was 46 to 57 months; without it, the range would have been 30 to 37 months.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed McCollum’s conviction. It held that circuit precedent foreclosed both components of his Second Amendment argument: United States v. Canada foreclosed his facial challenge to § 922(g)(1), and United States v. Hunt foreclosed his as-applied challenge.
The court did not decide whether the district court properly imposed the four-level enhancement. Instead, it assumed an error and held that any mistake was harmless because the district court expressly stated that it would impose the same 46-month sentence as a variance under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
The panel also concluded that the sentence was substantively reasonable even under the lower, unenhanced range. The district court reasonably relied on McCollum’s criminal history, including numerous prior drug offenses; the discovery of a loaded nine-millimeter handgun in his backpack at airport security; and the needs for punishment, deterrence, respect for the law, and protection of the public, while also considering his supportive family and entrepreneurial skills.
Key Takeaways
- Fourth Circuit precedent forecloses both facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1).
- The panel left unresolved whether the firearm enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) was correctly applied.
- Any assumed Guidelines error was harmless because the district court clearly announced the same sentence as an alternative variance and adequately supported it under § 3553(a).
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision applies existing Fourth Circuit precedent to reject constitutional challenges to the federal felon-in-possession statute after Bruen. It also illustrates how a district court’s explicit alternative-variance explanation can preserve a sentence when an appellate court assumes, without deciding, that the Guidelines calculation was erroneous.