Background
Curtis Moore, Jr., 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 Northern District of Texas calculated an enhanced base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(3), based on Moore’s prior Texas robbery offense, and imposed a within-guidelines sentence of 66 months in prison.
On appeal, Moore challenged both his conviction and sentence. Raising the constitutional issues for the first time on appeal, he argued that § 922(g)(1) facially violates the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen and exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause authority. He also argued that Texas robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence because its mens rea is broader than that of Guidelines robbery.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. It held that circuit precedent foreclosed Moore’s facial Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges to § 922(g)(1).
Reviewing the sentencing issue for plain error, the court concluded that its 2026 decision in United States v. Williams defeated Moore’s mens rea argument. Under Williams, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(e)(3)—which defines robbery for purposes of the § 2K2.1(a)(3) crime-of-violence enhancement—contains no scienter requirement. Without such a requirement, Texas robbery is a categorical match for Guidelines robbery, so the district court did not plainly err in applying the enhanced base offense level.
Key Takeaways
- Fifth Circuit precedent forecloses facial Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges to the federal felon-in-possession statute.
- The Guidelines’ robbery definition in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(e)(3) does not impose a mens rea requirement.
- Texas robbery categorically qualifies as Guidelines robbery for the enhanced base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(3).
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that, in the Fifth Circuit, defendants cannot defeat § 2K2.1(a)(3)’s robbery-based enhancement by arguing that Texas robbery has a broader mens rea than Guidelines robbery. It also reiterates that existing circuit authority controls facial Second Amendment and Commerce Clause attacks on § 922(g)(1).