Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantstatutehearingmotionfelonymotion to dismiss

defendantmotionfelonymotion to dismiss

Related Cases

United States v. Giglio, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2023 WL 4918332

Facts

Defendant Damien Xavier Giglio was indicted for knowingly possessing a firearm while being a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He had previously been convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) for possession of a firearm while an unlawful user of a controlled substance. Giglio filed a Motion to Dismiss the indictment, claiming that the application of § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional following the Bruen decision. The court held a hearing to consider the arguments and the applicable law.

This Defendant was previously convicted of possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of a controlled substance under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) could be challenged based on the defendant's prior conviction and the implications of the Bruen decision.

The threshold question raised was what effect, if any, the legality of the underlying conviction would have on the validity of the current criminal indictment under § 922(g)(1).

Rule

The court applied the principle that the fact of a felony conviction imposes a firearm disability under § 922(g)(1), regardless of the validity of the underlying conviction.

The Court “h[e]ld that § 1202(a)(1) prohibits a felon from possessing a firearm despite the fact that the predicate felony may be subject to collateral attack on constitutional grounds.”

Analysis

The court analyzed the case by referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Lewis v. United States, which established that the mere fact of a felony conviction is sufficient to impose a firearm disability. The court concluded that the validity of Giglio's prior conviction under § 922(g)(3) did not affect the current indictment under § 922(g)(1), and thus the Motion to Dismiss was denied.

Applying the rule of Lewis to the facts of this case, the Court finds that the “fact of a felony conviction” is the operative element of section 922(g)(1) , not the validity of the conviction, at the time Defendant is alleged to have possessed the firearm.

Conclusion

The court denied the Motion to Dismiss filed by Damien Xavier Giglio, affirming that the indictment under § 922(g)(1) was valid despite the defendant's arguments regarding the constitutionality of the statute.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [22] Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant, Damien Xavier Giglio, is DENIED.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the validity of the indictment against Giglio under § 922(g)(1) based on established legal principles.

The Court hereby adopts by reference it's opinion in Schnur and denies the pending [22] Motion to Dismiss for the reasons stated therein.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

United States v. Moyer, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 2266906

Fezzani v. Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., 384 F.Supp.2d 618, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,733

Khani v. Ford Motor Co., 215 Cal.App.4th 916, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4204, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5399

U.S. v. Guerrerio, 670 F.Supp. 1215

In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, 265 F.Supp.2d 385, 2003-2 Trade Cases P 74,099