### - 1- P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 09- 1756

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J AM E S L

. CH E E S E M AN, A ppel l ant

___________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e D istric t C o u rt fo r t h e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( N o. 09- cr - 00124- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sue L. R obi ns on

___________ A r gued O ct ober27, 2009
B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , F U E N T E S , a n d H A R D IM A N ,

C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ar ch 2, 2010)

### - 2- C handr a J

. W i l l i ams ( A r gued) C h arles M

. O b erly , III Dr i n k e rBi d d l e & Re a t h , LLP 1100 N or t h M ar ketSt r eet Sui t e 1000 W i l m i ngt on, D E 19801 C ouns el forA ppel l ant
K ei t h M

. R os en ( A r gued) L e sle yF . W o lf O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 1007 N

. O r ange St r eet Sui t e 700 P. O

. B ox 2046 W i l m i ngt on, D E 19899 C ouns el forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge:

### - 3- Appe l l ant , J am e s L. Che e s e m an, pl e d gui l ty t o vi ol at i ng 18 U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 3) , whi c h c r i m i na l i z e s pos se s s i on of fi r e arm s andamm

un i t i onby

an unl aw fu lus e r

or a dd i c t of a contr ol l e d s ub s t anc e . He a pp e a l s fr om

the Di s tr i c t

Co urt’ s jud g m e n t d i r e c t i n g th e f

o r f e i t ur e o f o v e r 6 0 0 f i r e arm s and am m un it ion enu m er at ed in Co un t I of the indictm ent t o w hich he pl e d g ui l ty . Ch e e s e m an r a i s e s two ar gum e nt s ona pp e a l

. He fi r s t c ont e nds that

for fe i t ur e pur s uant

t o 18 U. S. C. § 924( d) ( 1) wa s i m pr ope r be c aus e the pr ope rty

wa s ne i the r “invol ve d i n” no r “ us e d i n” akn ow i ng vi ol at i onof 18 U. S. C. § 9 22 ( g) (3). A ltern ativ ely , C h eesem anarg u es th at f o rf eiture o f h is p ro p erty v io lates th e E x cessiv e F in es C lau se o f th e E ig h thA m en dm en t. B ecau se w e f

in dth at th e f

irearm s an d amm

un itio nsp ecif

ically id en tif iedinC o un t I o f th e in d ictm en t w ere in v o lv edin Ap pell ant’ s § 9 22 ( g) ( 3) violat ion, and b ec ause we conclude that th e f o rf eiture o f C h eesem an ’s p ro p erty w as n o t g r o ssly di s prop or t i on at e t o the gravity of

the § 9 22 ( g) ( 3) of

fe ns e , we willaffirm

the Dis tric t Court ’s Order of F orfeit ure.T hes e fa ct s ar e der i ved fr om t he i ndi ct m entand t he 1 D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o p in io n . See U ni t ed Stat es v. C hees em an , 593 F

. S u p p . 2 d 6 8 2 (D

. D el. 2 0 0 9 ). A lth o u g h C h ee sem an ’s r eci t at i on of t he fac t s s ur r oundi ng hi s acc es s and us e of X

- R i ng di ffe r s s l i ght l yfr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ct , he does notal l ege thatt hos e fi ndi ngs ar e cl ear l y er r oneous , nordoes he poi ntt o anyfac tual er r or . H e m er el y pr es ent s t he fact s i n a l i ght m or e favor abl e t o hi s l egal ar gum ent s . A ft err evi ew i ng t he r ecor d, i ncl udi ng t he por t i ons ci t ed by C hees eman i n s uppor tof hi s fac tual as s er t i ons , w e di s cern no cl earer r ori n t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t.



### - 4- I. Bac k gr ound 1 

### Fr om 1994 thr ough Augus t

2007, Che e s e m an wa s the owne r and s ol e pr opr i e t or

of X- Ri ng Suppl y , a s port i ng goods and f ir earm s sto re locate d in N ewar k, Delaware . The federal fire ar m s l ic ense (“ FF L”) fo r X-Ring w as held in Ch ee se m an’s nam e . X- Ri ng m a i nt ain ed an i nve nt ory of a ppr oxi m at e l y

600 fire ar m s. Th e pre m is es includ ed a s epar at e war ehou se locate d n ex t to th e sto re. Ch e e s e m an’ s dr

ug abu s e be gan i n 2 00 3 after hi s wi fe ended their

m ar riage. Betwee n 2 00 5 and20 07 , a s his cr ac k coca ine a dd ic ti onwo rs ened, Chees em an conv erte d X -R ing’s w areh o u se in to h is h o m e, sto ri n g in sid e it anair m attress, s l e e pi ng ba g and be ddi ng. The Di s tr i c t Court found that fe l l ow crackco cain e ab u sers o ccasio n ally stayedw ithC h e e s e m anin the war ehou se and th at

he occas ionall y

turned of

f X -Ring’s s e c ur i ty s ys t e m . A l th o u g hC h e e s e m anar g u e s t o th e c o n tr ary, the Dis tric t Court

fo u n d th at am

m un it ion andgun b ox es were

### - 5- sto redinth e w areh o u se. In 2 0 0 5 , C h eesem anco m

p leteda ren ew al ap p lication for h is F F L , o nw h ich h e i n d i catedth at h e d idn o t un law f u lly u se nar c ot i c s . Ans we r i ng thi s que s t i on fa l s e l y s ubje c t s an a

ppl i c ant to 18 U. S. C. § 9 24 ( d) pe na l t i e s . Be c aus e of Ch e e s e m an’ s er rati c behavior du e to his se vere drug habit, his si st er N ancy Ma c knatt a s s um e d powe r

of att orne y

ove r he r br othe r and b e g ant o m an a g e X

- R i n g ’ s d a i l y o p e r at i o n s . A c c o r d i n g l y, Che e s e m an’ s pr e s e nc e in the s t or e wa s “ s por a di c and unpredic ta

ble. ” Che es e man , 593 F. Supp. 2d at 685. No nethe l e s s , e m

pl oye e s fo un d c r a c k p ipe s onX- Ri ng ’s p rem ises o nat least three sep arate o ccasio n s. A . The i nc i de nt

pr om pt i ng thi s c a s e oc c urr e d on Augus t 5, 20 07 , when D el aware p o li ce of fice rs ob se rved a wom an urinat ing in the parking lot of a ph arma cy . The wo m an was Che e s e m an’ s c om

pani on. Aft e r the pol i c e offi c e r s found dr ugs on h er pe r s on, Che e s e m an c ons e nt e d t o apat down, dur i ng w h icho f f icers lo cateda crackp ip e an dcra c k co cain e. A s ubs e qu e nt

s e ar c h of hi s ve hi c l e r e ve a l e d as e c ond c r a c k pipe and a dd it ional cr ac k c ocai ne. Ch ee se m an told the p o li ce o f f i c e r s th at h e ab u s e ddr

u g s an d h a dr e c e n t l y

r e t urn e df r o m a reh ab ilitatio nf

acility

. Sh ortl y ther ea fter , federa l a gents e xe cu te d a se ar ch war ran t at X- Ri ng and s e i z e d a

ppr oxi m at e l y

609 guns and am m un it ion; an es ti m at ed si xty-s ev en o f the fire ar m s wer e i de nt i fi e d a s c om

pr i s i ng Che e s e m an’ s pe r s ona lc ol l e c t i on. Som e o f the s e i z e d we a pons we r e ant i que fi r e arm s . I n the war e hous e , a ge nt s r e c ove r e d ac r a c k pipe , am i rr or wi th c oc a i neN o w a c o n v icte d f e lo n , C h e e se m a n c a n n o t law f u lly 2 p o s s e s s a f

ir e a rm . See 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ). If w e w e re to ru le t hat the fo rfei ture w as i m prope r or un con st i tuti on al , i ti s l ess t han ce r t ai n t hat t he fi r earm s and amm uni t i on w oul d be r etur ned to C h e e s e m a n ’s s is te rs , th e o w n e rs o f X -R in g . C

f. U ni t ed Stat es v. Fel i ci , 208 F. 3d 667, 670 ( 8t h C i r . 2000) ( rul i ng t h at co n v ict ed fe lon s ca n n o t con stru cti v elyp o sses s firea rm s).



### - 6- residu e, a b urn t sp o o nw ithcuttin g residu e , anash tray w ith w h ite residu e, amm

un itio n , a b utan e to rchan da scale w ith whi t e r e s i due

. C ons e que nt l y , afe de r a lgr and jury r e t urne d a thr e e - c ount

i ndi c tm e nt

a ga in s t Che e s e m an wi th not i c e of fo rfei ture , a cc using h im

of : ( 1) po ss es si onof

a fir earm by an unl awfuldr

ug us e r i n vi ol at i on o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 922( g) ( 3) ; ( 2) pos s e s s i on of m or e than fi ve gr am s of c r a c k c oc a i ne i n vi ol at i on o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 4 (a); an d (3 ) d istrib utio n o f crack co cain e in v io latio no f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1 ). Re l e vant t o thi s a ppe a l , § 922( g) ( 3) m ake s i t u n law ful for an y p e r s on “ who i s an unl awfulus e r of or a ddi c t e d t o any c ontr ol l e d s ubs t anc e ( a s de fi ne d in sec t i on 102 of the Contr ol l e d Subs t anc e s Ac t
. . . )

. . . t o . . . pos s e s s i n or a ffe c t i ng comm er ce , any fire ar

m or am m un it ion.” 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g)( 3). Count One of the i ndi c tm e nt

i de nt i fi e d i ndi vi dua l l y the 609 fire ar ms an d a qu anti ty

of am m un it ion that Chees em an was ac cuse d o f ill egal ly

po ss es si ng . I n D ec em

ber 200 7, Ch ee se m an d iv este d h im self

o f all o f h is in terest inX -R in g , sellin g it to M ackn att an dto h is o th er sister, P am ela Rh o ad es. 2

### - 7- B . I n Fe br uary 2008, Che e s e m an pl e d gui l ty t o vi ol at i ng § 9 2 2 (g )(3 ). Inh is p lea ag reem en t h e adm ittedth at: [ I] f th ere w ere a trial, th e G o v ern m en t w o u ld have t o pr ove thr e e e l e m e nt s of the o f f en s e : ( 1) that fr om on or about Augus t 5, 2007, thr ough Aug u st 14, 2007, the de fe ndant pos s e s s e d a fire ar m or am m un it ion; (2) that the defend ant was a r egul ar u ser of, or addicte d to, a c on tr olle d s ubs t anc e dur i ng a pe r i od of t i m e pr oxi m at e t o or c ont e m por an eo u s wi th the pos s e s s i on of the fi r e a r m o r a m m u n i t i o n; a nd ( 3) t he ab o v e-d escrib edf

irearm af f ectedin ter s tate c o m m erc e . T h ed e f

e n d a nt kn o w i n g l y , v o lunt a

ri ly, an din tellig en tly

adm its f o r p urp o ses o f

h is g u ilty p lea an dsen ten cin g th at, f ro m o no r ab o ut Au g u st 5 , 2 0 0 7 , thro u g h Au g u st 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 : (a) h e actu ally and c ons tr

uc t i ve l y possess e d the fi r e arm s and amm uni t i on s e t

forth i n [Co u n t

One ] of the i nd i c tm e nt ; (b) he wa s ar e gu l ar un l awf ulus e r of , an da d d i c t e dt o , c o c a i n e b a s e ; an d( c ) th e f i r e arms an damm

un itio nat issu e af

f ectedin terstate comm er ce . Che es e man , 593 F. Supp. 2d at 683 (in te rna lquot at i on m arks & c i t atio no m itted ). T h e D istrict C o urt d elayedsen ten cin g in o r d e r t o h o l d a f

o r f e i t ur e h e ar i n g t o d e t e rm i n e w h e th e rthe fi r e arm s and amm

uni t i on s pe c i fi c a l l y

e num e r at e d i n Count

One of the i ndi c tm e nt we r e for fe i t abl e pur s uant t o § 924( d) ( 1) , and if so, whether

fo rfei ture w o uld v iolate the Exces si ve Fines

### - 8- C lau se o f th e E ig h thA m en dm en t. Se c t i on 924 i s the pe na l ty pr ovi s i on of the Gun Contr ol Act of 1 96 8 (“GunCo ntrol Act ”) . Sec ti on92 4(d)(1) provides that “ any fi r e arm or amm uni t i on i nvol ve d i n or

us e d in any kn o w in g v io latio no f

sub sectio n. . . (g )

. . . o f sectio n 9 2 2

. . . shal l be s ub

ject to se izure andfo rfei ture .” Sect ion 9 24 (d)( 2)(c ) m andat e s that “ [o]nl y thos e fi r e arm s or quant i t i es of am m un it ion p arti cularl y

nam ed and ind ividua lly

identi fied as inv o lv edino r u sedinany v io latio no f

th e p ro v isio n s o f

th is c ha pt e r . . . s ha l lbe s ubje c t t o s e i zur e , for fe i t

ur e , and di s pos i t i on. ” Pur s uant

t o 26 U. S. C. § 5872(b) , any fi r e arm s or am m un it ion f orfeit ed m ay

be destroyed, sold to a s tate , or use d b y th e f ed eral g o v ern m en t. C . Al tho ug h the Di s tr i c t

Co ur t di d n ot c l e ar l y i de nt i fy wh ic h p orti on o f § 92 4(d) it fo un d sat is fied, i .e ., wh ether Che e s e m an “ i nvol ve d” or “ us e d” the fi r earm s i n aknowi ng vi ol at i on of § 922( g) ( 3) , the Di s tr i c t Court , a ft e r h o ld in g a h e ar i n g o nth e f

o r f e i t ab i l i ty o f C h e e s e m an ’ s p r o p e rty, c onc lude d t

hat Cheesem an ’s g u ilty

p lea su f f icien tly satis fi e d t he st at ute’ s forfeit

ure r equire m ents
. Th e D is tric t C ourt firs t noted th at th e G o v e rnm e n t

m u s t p r o v e f

o r f e i t ab i l i ty b y a pr e ponde r anc e of the e vi de nc e and e s t abl i s h as uffi c i e nt ne xus be twe e n the § 922( g) ( 3) vi ol at i on and the pr ope rty s ought t o be f o r f e i t e d

. SeeFed. R. Crim . P. 32.2(b)(1)( A) (providing that whe n “ the gove rnm e nt

s e e ks for fe i t

ur e of s pe c i fi c pr ope rty , the court mu st dete rmine whether the gov er

nm ent has es ta

blis hed the r equisi te nexu s between the property and the of

fense”)

. Ne xt , the Di s tr i c t Co ur

t r e je c t e d Ch e e s e m an’ s c ont e nt i onthat

### - 9- “there [w as ] no evidence that he ever us ed or invo lved a fir earm in any m anner t o f

ac il it at e h is coca ine a dd ic ti on .” Che es e man , 593 F. Supp. 2d at

687. Rathe r , the Di s tr i c t Court m a de the fol l owi ng fi ndi ngs of f act l i nki ng Che e s e m an’ s dr ug abus e t o hi s § 922( 3) ( g) ( 3) v io latio n : [I ]t i s cl e ar fr om the e vi de nc e and t e s t i m ony pr e s e nt e d at

the e vi de nt i ary

he ar i ng a s we l la s the unc ont e s t e d [Pr e - Se nt e nc i ng Re port ] that: ( 1) de fe ndant ha s be e n us i ng c oc a i ne s i nc e 2003; ( 2) he wa s l i vi ng and us i ng c r a c k c oc a i ne at X- Ri ng; ( 3) dur i ng a ft e r [- ]bus i ne s s hour s , de fe ndant al lowed u se rs of cr ac k c ocai ne to st ay with him at X-Ring ; ( 4) drug para

ph er nali a was fo un d at X- Ri ng; ( 5) de fe ndant l i e d about hi s a ddi c t i on on his FFL re newal; (6) a fter defend ant’ s FFL was ren ew ed -o nf

alse p reten ses-h e co n tinu edto ope r at e X- Ri ng, i nc ludi ng pur c ha s i ng and s e l l i ng f i r e arm s ; ( 7 ) h e c o m

p r o m i s e dth e s e c ur i ty

of X-Ring by

turning off the se curi ty al ar m in order to allo w h im self

an dcrackad d icts in to th e retail s t or e ; ( 8) he s t or e d hi s pe r s ona lgun c ol l e c t i on un se cure d; and (9) al thou gh no t a ct ivel y invo lved in the day- t o- day

bus i ne s s of X- Ri ng, de fe ndant used drug s on the p re mise s andhad unf et te re d a c c e s s to th e i nve nt ory of fi r e arm s andC h e e se m a n o f f e rs “ in n o c e n t” e x p lan a tio n s f o r h is 3 b e h a v io r. F o r ex a m p le, he c o n ten d s th a t h e w o u ld o c c a sio n a lly tur n off X

- R i ng’ s s ecur i t ycamer as for pr i vacyr eas ons w hen he h a d f e m a le c o m p a n io n s h ip a t th e s t o re . ( See A p p ell an t’ s B r. 1 7

. ) H e d o es n o t, h o w ev er, ex p lai n w h ythe D istri ct C o u rt ’s f in d in g c o n s titu te s c le a r e rr o r.



### - 10- amm uni t i on. 3 

### I d. Thus , the Di s tr i c t

Court r ul e d that th e fi r e arm s and amm uni t i o n spe c i fi c a l l y

i de nt i fi e d i n Count

One of the indictm ent wer e forfeit able purs uant to § 9 24 (d)( 1). Ne xt , the Di s tr i c t

Cour t r e j e c t e d C h e e s e ma

n ’ s c o nt e nt i on that for fe i t ur e of the fi r e arm s and amm uni t i on woul d vi ol at e the E ig h th A me n dm en t’s p ro h ib itio no nex cessiv e f in es. Wh ile C h eesem anco n ten d edth at th e seizedf irearm s w ere w o rth approx im at el y

$5 00 ,000 and the G ov er nm ent c ounter ed that the y we r e va lue d at $371, 500, the Di s tri c t Court assu m e d, argu endo , that th e ac tu alvalue was the higher figure. Reas on ing that t

he Go vernm ent c ou ld have charged ea ch i ndi vi dua lpos s e s s i on a s as e par at e offe ns e , the r e by e xpos i ng C h eesem anto m

u ltip le sp ecial assessm en ts an dstatuto ry f in es, th e D istrict C o urt co n clu d edth at th e G o v ern m en t’s restrain t in charging re nd er ed the forfeitureconsti tuti ona l

. Ch e e s em an was the n s e nt e nc e d t o e i ght

m onths t i m e - s e rve d and thr e e y ears of supervis ed rele as e. Th e Dis tric t Court decl ined to im

po se a f in e. I I . D i s cus s i on 

### Che e s e m an r a i s e s two ar gum e nt s on a ppe a l

. Fi r s t , he c ont e nds that

for fe i t ur e of hi s fi r e arm s and amm uni t i on purs uant to §9 24 (d)( 1) was im prop er beca use the prop erty

was neither i nv olved in n or used in a kno wing violat ion o f § 92 2(g). C h ee s e m an a l t e rnat i ve l y

ave r s that

the for fe i t

ur e vi ol at e s theT he D i s t r i ctC our t had s ubj ect m at t erj ur i s di ct i on over 4 t his c ri m i nal cas e pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 33 1. W e exerci se j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s appea l fr om t he fi nal j udgm en t of convi ct i on pur su ant t o 28 U

. S. C

. § 1291. E ven t hough C hees eman no l ongerow ns t he fi r earm s oramm uni t i on, Feder al R ul e of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e 32. 2( 4) ( A ) , w hi ch gover ns cr i m i nal for fei tur e, pr ovi des t hat a for fei tur e becomes fi nal ats ent enci ng and t hata def

endantm ayappea l a for fei tur e o rder once s e n te n c e d

. S e e U

n ited S ta tes v . B e n n e tt , 423 F. 3d 271, 275 ( 3d C i r . 2005) (ho lding t hata fi nal or derof for fei tur e ca n onl ybe im p o se d a s p a rt o f a d e f e n d a n t’s crim in a l s e n te n c e ); U ni t ed S ta tes v . P e lu llo , 178 F. 3d 196, 202 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( not i ng t hat

“ th e o rd e r o f f

o rf e itu re e n ter e d a t se n ten c in g is a f in a l o rd e r w ith resp ec t t o the d ef

en d an t from w h ich h e c an ap p ea l”). W e r eview a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl ear erro r an d ex erc ise p lena ry rev iew o v er a d istri ct c o u rt’s in te rp re ta tio n o f

a s ta tu te
. See U

nit ed S t ates v. R ive ra C on str. C o. , 863 F. 2d 293, 295 n. 3 ( 3d C i r . 1988)

. W e r evi ew de novo a d istri ct co u rt ’s de term in a tion o f w h ethe r a f o rfe itu re co n sti tutes an ex ce ssive fin e in v iolati o n o f th e C o n sti tuti o n ’s E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . B a

ja ka jia n , 52 4 U. S. 3 2 1 , 3 3 6 -3 7 (1 9 9 8 ).



### - 11- Ei ghth A m e ndm e nt ’ s pr oh ibi t i onone xc e s s i ve fi nes
. W e do 4 notfi nd ei t herar gum entper s uas i ve.

A . S tatu tor y A rg u m en ts C hees eman fi r s tar gues t hatfor fei tur e pur s uantt o 18 U

. S. C

. § 924( d) w as i m pr operbeca us e t he contr aband w as not “i nvol ved i n” or“used i n” a know i ng vi ol at i on of t he s ubs t ant i ve pr ovi s i on of t he G un C ont r ol A ctt o w hi ch he pl ed gui l t y . W e w i l l fi r s t addr es s t he sec ond of t he t w o al t er nat i ves i n t he s t atut e, w hi ch perm i t s forf ei tur e of f

i r earm s and a m m u n itio n “ u s e d in ” a § 9 2 2 (g )( 3 ) v io la tio n .

### - 12- T he fi r s ts t ep i n i nt erpr et i ng t he meani ng of § 924( d) ( 1) is a n a lyzi n g th e s ta tu to ry te x t. See B ai l ey v. U ni t ed Stat es , 516 U

. S. 137, 144- 45 ( 1995)

. B eca us e ne ither“i nvol ved i n” nor “us ed i n” i s defi ned i n t he st atut e, w e l ook t o t he or di nar yand natur al m eani ng of t he w or ds , as w el l as t he “pl ace m entand p u rpo se [of t he phr as es ] i n t he s t atut or ys cheme. ” Id

. at145 ( i nt er nal quot at i on m ar ks & ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. T hus , t he

“ me a n i n g o f

s t a tu t o r yl a n g u a g e , p l a i n o rn o t , d e p e n d s on cont ext
. ” Id

. at144- 45 ( i ns t ruct i ng i nt erpr et i ng cour t s t o r evi ew th e “ lan g u a g e , co n tex t, an d h isto ry ” o f a sta tu te) . In tu rn , itis a p p ro p ria te to e x a m in e sim ilar la n g u a g e in th e sta tu te to a s c e rt a in th e m e a n in g o f u n d e f in e d te rm s . See i d. ( not i ng t hat “us i ng a fi r earm s h oul d nothave a di ffe r entm eani ng i n § 92 4(c) (1) t han i tdo es i n § 92 4(d)”) (i nternal qu otat i on m arks & c ita tio n o m itte d ). If a sta tu te is a m b ig u o u s a n d p u n iti v e in n a tu re , “th e ru le o f len ity re q u ire s th a t a n y a m b ig u ity in th e sta tu te b e re so lv e d in favor of t he cl ai m ant
. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. $734, 578. 82 i n U ni t ed S tat es C ur r ency , 2 8 6 F. 3 d 6 4 1 , 6 5 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( c i t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. O ne 1973 Rol l s R oyce, 43 F. 3d 794, 801 ( 3d C ir

. 1 9 9 4 )). T h e ru le of lenity , h o w ev er, i s ina p p li ca b le i f th ere i s onl ya mer e s ugg esti on of ambi gui t ybeca us e most“s t atut es ar e ambi guous t o s om e de g ree . ” S e e id

. at658 ( i nt er nal quot a t i o n ma r k s & c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d )

. Fu r t h e r mor e , any
“ [ j]u d icia l p e rc e p tio n ” th a t th e r e s u lt in a c a se is u n re a so n a b le m ay not ent eri nt o ouri nt erpr et at i on of an una m bi guous s t atut e. S e e C o m m ’rv . A s

p h a lt P r o d

s . C o ., 4 8 2 U

. S

. 1 1 7 , 1 2 1 (19 8 7 ). 1. “U s ed I n” P rong of

18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 3) Ch e e s e ma n a r g u e s t h a tf o r f e i tu r e p u r s u a n t t o 1 8 U. S

. C. § 924( d) ( 1) w as i m pr operbeca us e t he sei zed f i r earm s and amm uni t i on w er e not“us ed i n” hi s § 922( g) ( 3) vi ol at ion. A l t hough no pr ece dent i al cas e l aw di r ect l yaddr es s es t he m e a n in g o f

“ u se d in ” w ith re sp e c t to a § 9 2 2 (g )(3 ) v io latio n , in a t r i l ogyof ca s es t he Supr eme C ou rt h as ext ens i vel yexpl or ed

### - 13- t he meani ng of “us es ” i n t he § 924( c) cont ex t
. Sect i on 924( c) adds fi ve y ear s t o a s ent ence forany one w ho uses , carr i es , or pos s es s es a fi r earm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a cr i m e of vi ol ence o r a d ru g tra f

f ick in g c rim e . B e c a u se th e m e a n in g o f “ u se ” is pr es um ed t o be t he s ame i n §§ 924( c) and 924( d) ( 1) , t hes e ca s es gui de our i nt erpr et at i on of t he m eani ng of t he phr as e “ 

### u sedin any knowi ng vi ol at i on of s ubs e c t i on . . . ( g)

. . . of s e c t i on 922 ” in § 9 2 4 (d )( 1 ). S e e P o w e r ex C o r p . v . R e l i a n tE n e r

g y S e r v s ., In c ., 551 U

. S. 2 2 4 , 2 3 2 ( 2007) ( “A s t andar d pr i nci pl e of s t atut or ycons t ruct i on pr ovi des t hati dent i cal w or ds and phr as es wi t h i n t h e s a me s t a tu t e s h o u l d n o r ma l l y b e g i v e n t he s a me m ea n ing

. ”). T he fi r s tcas e i n w hi ch t he Supr eme Courtaddr es s ed t he defini t i on of “u ses” i n the con tex t of § 92 4(c) w as Sm i th v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 0 8 U. S. 2 2 3 ( 1 9 9 3 )

. I n S m ith , t he C our trul ed t hat t r adi ng a fi r earm for drugs cons t i tut ed a “ us e” f orpurpos es of appl y i ng § 924( c) ’ s enhanc ed penal t y . 508 U

. S. at225. T he C o u rt lo o k e d a t th e d ictio n a ryd e f in iti o n o f “ u se ,” n o tin g th a t it is de fin ed , v ariab ly , as “ [t]o m ak e u se o f; t o co n v e rt to o n e’s se rv ice ; to e m p lo y ; to a v a il o n e se lf o f; to u til ize ; to c a rry o u t a purpos e oract i on bym eans of. ” Id

. at 229 ( i nt er nal q u o tat ion m a rk s & c it a tio n o m itt e d ). T h u s, a c c o rd in g to th e p lain l angu age of t he t er m , t he Sm ith C our trul ed t hat“us e” of a f ir e a rm is n o t lim ite d to f i r i n g a f ir e a rm . Id

. T o t h e c o n t r a r y, t he C our thel d t hatSm i t h us ed t he fi r earm w hen he tr aded i tfor d ru g s . S e e id . a t 2 4 0 -4 1

. T w o y ear s l at eri n B ai l ey v . U ni t ed Stat es , 516 U

. S. 137 ( 1995) , t he C our t addr es s ed w het her m er e pos s es s i on of a f ire a rm c o n stitu ted a “ u se ” o f a f ire a rm d u rin g a n d in re latio n toA tt he t i m e B ai l ey w as deci ded, § 924( c) did not 5 i n c l u d e t h e t e r m “ p o s s e s s . ” I to n l y i n c l u d e d t h e t e r m s “ c a r r y” and “us e. ” A ft ert he C our trul ed t hatm er e pos s es s i on di d not cons t i tut e a “us e” for § 924( c) purpos es , C ongr es s amended t he sta tu te to c rim in a lize p o ss e ss io n o f a f ir e a rm d u rin g a n d in re la tio n to a d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g o f f e n s e .



### - 14- drug t r aff

i cki ng. R ul i ng i n t he nega t i ve, t he C our tconcl uded

5 th a t “ e v id e n c e o f th e p ro x im ity a n d a c c e ss ib ili ty o f a f ire a rm to d r u g s o r d ru g p ro c e e d s is a lo n e [ in ]su f f icie n t to su p p o rt a convi ct i on for‘ us e’ of a f i r earm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a drug t r aff i cki ng offe ns e. ” B ai l ey , 516 U

. S. at 138- 39. I nvoki ng t he canon of s t atut or yi nt erpr et at i on t hat “a l egi s l atur e i s pr es um ed t o have us ed no s uper fl uous w or ds , ” t he C our tr eas oned t hatt he exp ansi ve reading of

“use” u rged by t he g ov ernm ent w ou l d als o en co m p ass c arry ing a f ir ea rm , there b yren d ering the term

“ c a rr y ” s u p e rf

lu o u s . Id

. at145- 46. B eca us e t he C our tdi s cerned n o in te n ti o n b yC o n g re ss f o r th e se ter m s to b e re d u n d a n t, i t rej ect ed the g ov ernm ent’ s expan si ve reading of “use. ” T hu s, acc or di ng t o B ai l ey , “us e” r equi r es m or e t han m er e pos s es s i on of a f i r earm ; r at her , “us e” e nt ai l s act i ve empl oy m entor ut i l i zat i on of a f

i r earm t o br i ng it w i t hi n t he meani ng of § 9 2 4 (c ). See i d. a t 1 4 3

. Fi nal l y , i n U

ni t ed St at es v. W

at s on , t he C our trul ed t hat t r adi ng drugs fora fi r earm di d notcons t i tut e a us e w i t hi n t he m eani ng of § 9 2 4 (c). 552 U

. S. 74, 76 ( 2007)

. B ui l di ng upon Sm ith and B ai l ey , t he W at s on C our tnot ed t hati n a bar t er i ng s i tuat i on, a “s el l er does not ‘ us e’ a buy er ’ s cons i der at i on. ” 552 U

. S. at 79 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. T hus , r ece i ptof a gun i n tr ade f or drug s does notcons t i tut e a “ us e” of a fi r earm for§ 924( c) p u rp o s e s . C i t i n g t h i s t r i l o g yo f

c a s e s , Che e s e ma n c o n t e n d s t hat for fei tur e w as ina ppr opr i at e bec aus e t he s ei zed f i r earm s and amm uni t i on w ere not“us ed i n” a know i ng vi ol at i on of §

### - 15- 922( g) ( 3)

. T he Gov e rn m entcount er s t hatC hees eman em pl oy ed th e f ire a rm s b y “ p u r c h a sin g th e m , o f f e rin g th e m f

o r sa le [t hr ough X

- R i ng] , and usi n g t he pr ocee ds t o s uppor thi s cr ack coca i ne addi ct i on. ” ( A ppel l ee’ s B r . 23. ) A cc o rding t o t he G over nm ent , l i ke t he def endanti n Sm ith , C hees eman bar ter ed wi t h h i s f i r e a r ms t o p u r c h a s e d ru g s . T o a d o p t t h i s a r g u me n t , we m us tacc eptt hat (1) i l l egal l ypur chas i ng guns on behal f of X

- R i ng ( 2) i n or dert o s el l thos e guns t o l aw ful buy er s ( 3) for t he p urpose o f usi ng t he p roceeds from t he sal e s to pu rchase d ru g s , i s s i mi l a r t o t h e f a c t s of S m ith , i n w hi ch t he def endant g a v e h is gu n d ire c tly to a d ru g d e a ler f o r co c a in e . T h is reas on i ng st ret ches Sm ith t oo farand ther efor e must be r ej ect ed. T her e i s no evi dence i n t he r ecor d s ugges t i ng t hatC hees eman act i vel yempl oy ed t he fi r earm s o rt r aded hi s fi r earm s t o drug d e a ler s to p u rc h a se c ra c k c o c a in e . R a th e r, th e re c o rd su p p o rts a f i n d i n g t h a tCh e e s e ma n u n l a wf u l l yp o s s e s s e d t h e f

i r e a r ms w h ile a d d icte d to n a rc o tics

. In d e e d , u n law f u l p o ss e ss io n d u e to h is s tatu s a s a d ru g a b u se r w a s th e b a sis f o r C h e e se m a n ’s g u ilty pl ea. B eca us e B ai l ey di ct at es t hatm er e pos s es s i on does not cons t i tut e “us e” f

or§ 924( d) ( 1) purpos es , for fei tu re c annotbe b a s e d u p o n th is p o rt io n o f th e s ta tu te
. 2. “I nvol ved I n” P rong of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 3) C h ees eman’ s nextar gum ent , t hatt he D i s t r i ctC ourt ’s or ders houl d be r ever s ed bec aus e t he s ei zed f i r earm s and amm un i t i on w er e not“i nvol ved i n” a vi ol at i on of t he G un C o n tro l A c t, i s le ss p e rsu a siv e . L ik e “ u se d in ,” “ in v o lv e d in ” is notdefi ned i n § 924( d) ( 1)

. T her efor e, ouranal y s i s agai n begi ns w i t h t he pl ai n m eani ng of “i n v o l v e d

. ” M e rr i a m- W ebs t erdefi nes
“ in v o lv e d ” a s: (1 ) “ to e n g a g e a s a p a rticip a n t”; (2 ) “ to re late c lo se ly ” ; (3 ) “ to h a v e w ith in o r a s p a rt o f its e lf ” ; an d (4 ) “ to requi r e as a nec es s ar yacc om pani m ent
. ” M er r i am-W ebs t er’ s C o llegi at e D i ct i on ary66 0 (11th ed. 20 03 ). T he term ’s pla in me a n i n g l e a d s t o t h e c on c l u s i o n t h a tt h e s e i z e d f i r e a r ms sp ec ifi ca ll yiden ti fied an d en u m era ted in C o u n t I w ereC o rp u s d e licti m e a n s “ th e s u b s ta n c e o f th e c ri m e .” 6 B la c k ’s L a w D ic tio n a ry 3 6 9 (8 th e d . 2 0 0 4 ).



### - 16- “ i nv olved i n” the offe nse t o w hich C heesem an p l ed g uil ty b e c a u se th e f

ire a rm s s e rv e d a s th e f

o u n d a tio n o f

h is c rim in a lity and convi ct i on. I ndeed, w i t hout t he fi r earm s , t her e w oul d have b e e n n o c rim e . A c c o rd in g ly , th e f ire a rm s w e re re late d c lo se ly to a n d w e re a n e c e ss a ry a c c o m p a n im e n t to th e c rim e c h a rg e d in C o u n t O n e . N o n ethe less, C h ee sem an co n tend s that the f ir ea rm s w ere n o t “ re la te d a t a ll to ,” n o r “ in v o lv e d in ,” h is a d d i c t i o n . ( See A p p ell an t’ s B r. 2 5

. ) T h is arg u m en t exp o ses C h ee sem an ’s m i s under s t andi ng of § 924( d) ( 1)

. T he for fei tur e s t atut e does not req u ir e that the f

ir ea rm s b e “ inv o lved in” C h ee sem an ’s a d d ic tio n in o rd e r to b e s u b je c t to f o rf e itu re . T o th e c o n tr a ry, § 9 2 4 (d )(1 ) p e rm its f

o rf e itu re o f a ll f

ire a rm s tha t ar e in v o lv e d in t he § 922( g) ( 3) offe ns e. I n ot herw or ds , t he obj ectof “i nvol ved i n” i s notC hees eman’ s addi ct i on. R at her , “i nvol ved i n” addr es s es t he off

ens es enumer at ed i n § 924( d) ( 1) , i ncl udi ng t he § 9 2 2 (g )( 3 ) v io la tio n to w h ic h C h e e s e m a n p le d g u ilty. Fur t her m or e, as t he G over nm entnot es , pos s es s i on of f ir ea rm s is a ne ce ssary elem en t o f a § 92 2 (g)(3 ) o ff en se. See U ni t e d S t a t e s v . 1 3 Fi r e a r ms & Amm u n i t i o n S e iz e d f r o m 7438 K Y 7 1 8 D ew i t t

, K y. , N o. 06- cv- 51 , 2 0 0 6 W L 1 9 1 3 3 6 0 , a t*2 ( E

. D

. K y . J ul y 11, 2006) ( not i ng t hat“i nvol ved i n . . . i ncl udes f ire a rm s p o ss e ss e d b yp ro h ib ited p e rso n s” ); s ee al s o U ni t ed St at es v. Jones , 232 F. Supp. 2d 6 1 8 , 623 n. 8 ( E

. D

. V a. 2002) ( r eas oni ng t hat i n § 922( g) ( 3) t he fi r earm i s t he c o rp u s d e licti ) ; 6 cf

. U ni t ed Stat es v. H

uber , 404 F. 3d 1047, 1056 ( 8t h C i r . 2005) (no ti n g t hatt he l aunder ed moneyi s t he corpus of a money laun d ering v iolati o n an d is th ere fo re “inv o lved in” th e o ff en se).

### - 17- Ind ee d , all § 9 2 2 (g )( 3 ) req u ir es f o r a v iolati o n is m ere pos s es s i on of fi r earm s byan unl aw fu l drug abus er , and C hees eman adm it ted unl aw ful pos s es s i on i n hi s gui l t ypl ea. C hees eman’ s ar gum entt hatt he v er yfi r earm s t hats er ve as t he bas i s forhi s u n d erl y i ng convi ct i on ar e not“i nvol ved i n” or

“ re la te d to ” th a t c o n v ic tio n s tr a in s c re d u lity. N o r is th e p h ra se “ in v o lv e d in ” a m b ig u o u s, w h ich w o u ld ot her w i s e m er i t appl i cat i on of t he rul e of l eni t y , beca us e w hen read i n t he cont extof t he ent i r e s t atut e, i nt erpr et i ng “i nvol ved in” to inclu d e p o sses sion o f f ir ea rm s d o es n o t r en d er § 9 2 4 (d )( 1 )’ s “ u s e d in ” c la u s e re d u n d a n t. See Bai l ey , 516 U

. S. at 146 ( “W e as su m e that C ongr es s us ed t w o t er m s [‘ carr y ’ and ‘use ’] be ca u se itinten d e d e a ch term to h av e a p arti cu lar, nons uper fl uous m eani ng. ”)

. W hen r ead i n t he cont extof the en ti re statute an d in co n jun cti o n w ith th e G u n C o n tr o l A ct’s l egi s l at i ve hi s t or y , i ti s cl eart hatbot h ter m s “us ed i n” and

“ in v o lv e d in ” h a v e p a rt ic u la r m e a n in g s . A centr al goal of t he G u n C ont r ol A ctw as r es t r i ct i ng publ i c ac ces s t o fi r earm s . I tw as enac t ed t o “s t r engt hen Feder al c o n tro ls o v e r in ter sta te a n d f o re ig n c o m m e rc e in f

ire a rm s a n d to a ss ist th e S tate s e f

f e c tiv e lyto re g u late f

ire a rm s tra f

f ic w ith in th e ir b o rd e rs .” H .R . R e p . N o . 9 0 -1 5 7 7 , a t 6 (1 9 6 8 ), re p rin tedin 1968 U

. S

. C

. C

. A

. N

. 4410, 4411. C ongr es s i onal act i on w as pr om pt ed byt he “i ncr eas i ng r at e of c r i m e and l aw l es s nes s and t he gr ow i ng us e of f

i r earm s i n v iole ntcr i m e. ” Id

. at7. A ddi t i onal l y , t he G un C ont r ol A ctamended T i t l e I V of t he O m ni bus C r i m e C ont r ol and S afe St r eet A ct s of 1968 t o i ncl ude un l a w fu l us e r s of

na r c ot i c s i n the c l a s s of i nd i vi du a l s w ho se ac ce ss t o, and p o sses sion o f, firearm s C o n g ress d ee m ed co n tr ary to p u b lic in te re s t. Id .; s ee al s o H uddl es t on v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 415 U

. S. 814, 824 ( 1974)

. T hi s purpos e i s i ll u str at ed by C ongressm an C el l er ’ s fl oors t at ement , ent er ed i nt o t he C ongr es s i onal R ecor d dur i ng t he A ct ’ s debat e, w her e i n h e not ed th a t:Si gni fi cant l y , undert he Senat e ver s i on of t he bi l l , an 7 amendm entr emoved t he pr ohi bi t ion o n drug abus er s fr om o wn i n g , p o s s e s s i n g o rr e c e i v i n g f i r e a r ms o ra mmu n i t i o n . H. R. R e p . N o . 9 0 -1 5 7 7 , a t 3 0 , re p rin tedin 1968 U

. S. C

. C

. A

. N

. 4410, 4430. T he H ous e ver s i on of t he bi l l , how ever , pr es er ved t he br oad exc l us i on and w as ul t i m at el y adopt ed byt he C onfer ence C om m i t t ee, pas s ed bybot h C hamber s o f C ongr es s and s i gned in to la w . Id

. T hus , des pi t e a c hal l enge f r om t he Senat e, t he p r o s c r i p t i o n a g a i n s tu n l a wf u l d ru g u s e r s po s s e s s i n g f i r e a r ms r e m a i n e d i n t a c t
.



### - 18- [ W ] e a r e c o n v i n c e d t h a ta s t r e n g t h e n e d [ f i r e a r ms c o n tro l sy ste m ] c a n sig n if ic a n tlyc o n trib u te to r e d u c [ i n g ] t h e d a n g e ro f c r i me i n t h e U ni t ed States. N o one ca n di s put e t he nee d t o pr event d ru g a d d icts , m e n tal in c o m p e ten ts, p e rso n s w ith a hi s t or yof m ent al di s turbance s , and per s ons convi ct ed of c er t ai n offe ns es fro m buy i ng, o w n in g , o r p o ss e ss in g f

ire a rm s. T h is bill se e k s to m axi m i ze the pos s i bi l i t y of keepi ng fi r earm s out o f th e h a n d s o f

s u c h p e rs o n s . H u d d le s t on , 41 5 U

. S

. at82 8 (i nternal quotat i on m arks & ci t at i on om it ted). T her efor e, § 922( g) w as enac t ed t o keep fi rear m s “out of t he han ds of those no tl egall yenti t l ed to possess them ” d u e to th eir st atus o f f all in g into o n e o f § 9 2 2 (g)’s p ro h ib ite d c a te g o ri e s . Id

. at82 4 (i nte rn a l q uo t at i on m arks & ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. I n ot herw or ds , § 922( g) “sim p ly s t r i kes at 7 th e p o s s e s s io n o f

f ir e a rm s b yth e w ro n g k in d o f p e o p le .” Scar bor ough v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 431 U

. S. 563, 573 ( 1977) ( i nt er nal quot at i on m ar ks & ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. T he r egul at i on i nt erpr et i ng t hi s s ect i on of t he G un C ontr ol A ctdefi nes an unl aw ful us er of a cont r ol l ed s ubs t ance as s om eone w ho “us es a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e a n d h a s lo s t th e p o w e r o f s e lf -c o n tr o l.”

### - 19- 27 C

. F. R

. § 478. 11. C hees eman’ s gui l t ypl ea makes pl ai n t hat h e is ju s t s u c h a p e rs o n . In 1 9 8 6 , C o n g ress p asse d th e F ir ea rm s O w n ers P ro tec tio n A c t (“ F O P A ” ), w h ich a m e n d e d th e G u n C o n tro l A c t. FO PA w as des i gned t o r el i eve the “bur dens ” t he 1968 A ct im p o se d o n la w f

u l f ire a rm s u se rs w h ile s im u ltan e o u sly s t r engt h eni ng “t he abi l i t yof l aw enfor cementt o fi ghtvi ol ent c rim e and narcot i cs t raffi cking. ” H

. R

. R ep. N o. 99 -495, at 1 (1 9 8 6 ), pr i nt ed i n 19 86 U

. S

. C

. C

. A

. N

. 13 27 , 13 27

. F O P A al so lim ited th e f

o rf e itu re p ro v isio n o f

th e G u n C o n tr o l A c t to f ir e a rm s o r a m m u n iti o n “ p a rticu lar lyn a m e d a n d in d iv id u a lly id e n tif ie d a s in v o lv e d in o r u s e d in s p e c if ie d v io la tio n s o f

la w .” Id

. a t13 ( i nt e r na l qu ot a t i on mar ks & c i t a t i on omi t t e d)

. FO PA di d notdefi ne t he t er m “i nvol ved i n” i n ei t hert he def i ni t i ons por t i on of t he bi l l or i n t he accompany i ng r epor tl anguage . N or di d FO PA r emove t he pr ohi bi t i on on drug abuse r s ow ni ng, p o s s e s s in g o r r e c e iv in g f ir e a rm s o r a m m u n itio n . T hi s l egi s l at i ve hi s t or ys uppor t s ourconcl us i on t hatour i nt erp ret at i on of “i nvol ved i n” does notr endert he “us ed i n” c l a u s e s u p e r f

l u o u s . I n S m ith , t he Supr eme C our topi ned t hat C ongr es s var i ed t he s t atut or ylang u ag e i n § 924( d) ( 1) and in c lu d e d t he b road t erm “i nv olved i n” to app l yt o cri m es in w h i ch the fi rear m ’s i nv olvem ent i n the enu m erat ed o ffen se w oul d not r equi r e a us e of t he fi r earm . 508 U

. S

. at 235 ( C ongr es s “ca r eful l yvar i ed t he s t atut or yl anguage [i n § 924( d)(1) ] i n acc or dance w i t h t he guns ’ r el at i on t o t he offe ns e. ”)

. C ons equent l y , t h e t e rm “ i n v o l ved i n” nec es s ar i l yhas a m o re exp ansi ve m eaning t han t he ter m “use” i n o rderto eff ectuat e C ongr es s ’ i nt ent i on t hat for fei tur e appl y t o t he uni que cr i m es enumer at ed i n § 922, w hi ch maybe comm i t t ed w i t hout e v e r u s in g a f

ir e a rm . Id

. I n t hi s w ay , C ongr es s ens ur ed t hatt he cl as s of i ndi v idu al s i tdeemed s houl d notpos s es s w eapons w o u ld h a v e th e ir f

ir e a rm s f o rf e ite d u p o n a v io la tio n o f § 9 2 2

.

### - 20- A s an exa m pl e, t he Sm i th C our tnot ed t hat§ 922(a)(6) cr i m i nal i zes “maki ng of a f al s e s t at em ent m at er i al t o t he l aw ful nes s of a gun’ s t r ans fer

. ” Id

. “B eca us e maki ng a mat er i al m i s s t at ement i n or dert o acqui r e . . . a gun i s not‘ us e’ of t he gun even unde rt he br oades tdefi ni t i on of the w or d ‘ us e, ’ ” t he Supr eme C o u rtco n clud ed that “C o n g ress c are ful l yexpande d the s t atu t or yl anguage ” byi ncl udi ng t he t er m “i nvol ved i n” i n t he s ta tu te
. Id . T h e re f

o re , C o n g re ss c h o se su c h a b ro a d ter m to e n su re f o rf e it u re o f

f ire a rm s f

o r o f f e n se s w h e re , as in C hees eman’ s cas e, “us e” i s not a nece s s ar y - ors om et i m es even a poss i bl e - el ement of t he cr i m e. T hus , w hen re ad i n cont extof t h e e n t i r e s t a tu t e a n d wi t h Co n g r e s s ’ i n t e n ti n mi n d , t h e t e r ms
“ in v o lv e d in ” a n d “ u s e d in ” re ta in s e p a ra te m e a n in g s . I n s um , w e ho ld thatpos s es s i on of fi r earm s and amm uni t i on i s s uffi ci entfora di s t r i ct co u rt t o fi nd t hatt he p ro p e rtyw a s “ in v o lv e d in ” a § 9 2 2 (g ) ( 3 ) o f f e n se . T h is i nterpret at i on of “i nv olved i n” m akes sense i n li gh tof C on gress ’ in te n t to k e e p f

ir e a rm s o u t o f

th e p o s s e s s io n o f

d ru g a b u s e rs , a danger ous cl as s of i ndi vi dual s , and s uppor t s a fi n di ng t hatt he s ei zed f

i r earm s and amm uni t i on w er e “i n vol ved i n” C hees eman’ s § 922( g) ( 3) offe ns e. T hi s concl us i on i s bol s t er ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ngs t hat : ( 1) C hees eman had u n f e tt e re d a c c e ss to th e f u ll p a n o p lyo f

w e a p o n s lo c a ted in X -R i ng ; (2) he u sed crack coc ai ne in and around t ho se w eapo ns; and (3) he brough t other drug abusers t o the st ore and w arehou se to sm o k e c rac k

. A cc o rdin g ly , w e a ff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’sFo r th e sam e r eas ons t hatt he for fei t ed fi r earm s and 8 amm uni t i on w er e “i nvol v ed i n” a know i ng vi ol at i on of § 922( g) ( 3) , t he D i s tr i c tCou rtc o r r ect l yfound, pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 32. 2, t hata s uffi ci ent nexus exi s t ed bet w een the for fei t ed pr oper tyand t he off ens e.



### - 21- d eterm ination that the s p ec ifi ed firearm s an d am m u n it ion w ere “i nvol ved i n” C hees eman’ s § 922( g) ( 3) vi ol at i on. 8 3. “K now i ng” V i ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 3) C hees eman’ s fi nal s t atut or y arg um ent , t hathe di d not know i ngl yvi ol at e § 922( g) ( 3) , al s o fai l s . C hees eman cont ends t hatw hi l e he pl ed gui l t yt o vi ol at i ng § 922( g) ( 3) , hi s gui l t ypl ea “does notpr ovi de an a dm i s s i o n o f ‘ k n ow i ngl y ’ vi ol at i ng Sect i on 9 2 2 (g ) f o r p u rp o s e s o f

f o r f e i t u re .” (A p p e lla n t’ s B r. 2 6 .) Ch e e s e ma n a r g u e s , wi t h o u t c i t a t i o n t o a n ys u p p o r t i n g c a s e l a w, t hat know led ge is especi al l yi m po rt ant i n cases, such as h i s, w h e re th e f

o rf e itu re is a c ri m in a l p u n is h m e n t. (Id

. at 27

. ) T h is a rg u m e n t is u n p e rsu asi ve b ecause itdis cou nts f irm ly estab li sh ed ca se law co n stru in g th e term “k n o w ing ” to re q u ir e
“ o n lyth a t th e a c t b e v o lu n tar ya n d in te n ti o n a l an d n o t [ to r equi r e] t hata per s on know s he i s br eaki n g the l aw . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Sokol ow , 91 F. 3d 396, 408 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( inte r nal quot at i on m ar ks & ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. C hees eman does not co n tend that h is d rug u se or f ir ea rm p o sses sion w as in v o lun tary o r u n in te n tio n a l. I n es s ence , C hees eman i nvi t es t he C our t t o r ead i nt o § 9 2 4 (d )(1 ) a w ill f

u ln e s s re q u ire m e n t, w h ich , if a p p lied , w o u ld r equi r e hi m t o have ha d actual know l edge that h is pr ohi bi t ed conductw as i l l egal i n or derforthe fi r earm s to be for fei t abl e. (A pp el l ant’ s B r. at 26 -27). W e rej ect t his argum ent. “C on gress [ is] p re su m e d to k n o w th e m e a n in g s o f th e w o rd s a n d p h ra se s it us es i n dr aft i ng s t atut es . ” P ope by Pope v. E

. B r uns w i ck Bd. of E duc. , 12 F. 3d 1244, 1249 ( 3d C i r . 1993)

. H er e, C ongr es s us ed

### - 22- th e ter m “ k n o w in g ” a n d n o t “w ill f u l,” c lea r ly in d ica tin g its pr efe r ence fort he l ow ers ci ent er . Fur t herunder m ini ng Che e s e ma n ’ s a r g u me n t i s t h e f a c t t h a t Con g r e s s i n cl uded a w ill f u l m e n s re a in a n o th e r c lau se o f 9 2 4 (d )(1 ). T h e re f

o re , if C o n g re ss in ten d e d th e f irst c lau se o f

§ 9 2 4 (d )(1 ) to a lso c o n tain a hei ght ened s ci ent er , i t w oul d have us ed t he t erm w il l ful in s te a d o f

k n o w in g . S e c o n d , d e sp it e h is p ro tes tatio n s to th e c o n tra ry , in h is pl ea a gr eementC hees eman unam bi guous l yad mi tt e d th athe w as a n u n l a wf

u l u s e ro f n a r c o t i c s wh o k n o wi n g l yp o s s e s s e d f i r e a r ms and a mmun i t i o n . Pr i o rt o e n a c t me n to f FOPA, c o u r t s o f

t en c o n s id e re d § 9 2 2 (g ) s tr ic t lia b ility c r im e s . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. C apps , 77 F. 3d 350, 3 5 2 n. 2 ( 10t h C i r . 1996)

. A ft er FO PA beca m e l aw , how ever , cour t s r ead i nt o § 922( g) a mens re a re q u ir e m e n t. Id . W h ile th e sta tu te is sile n t as to its re q u isite m ens r ea, t he el ement s of a 18 U

. S. C

. § 922( g) ( 3) vi ol at i on ar e: ( 1) t hatt he def

endanti s an unl aw ful us eroraddi cted t o any cont r ol l ed subs t ance ; ( 2) w ho t her eaf t er know i ngl ypos s es s ed a f ire a rm ; an d (3 ) th e p o ss e ss io n w a s in o r a f f e c tin g in te rsta te c o m m e rc e . Cf

. Uni t e d S t a t e s v . D odd , 2 2 5 F. 3d 340, 344 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( rea d ing i nt o t he fe l on- i n- pos s es s i on por t i on of § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ) a “ k n o w in g ” sc ien ter ); C apps , 7 7 F

. 3 d at 35 2 (sam e). T her efor e, beca us e C hees eman pl ed gui l t yt o C ountO n e, he a d m itte d th a t h e k n o w in g ly v io la te d § 9 2 2 (g )( 3 ). T hi r d, t o t he ext entt hatC hees eman’ s ar gum ent i s bas ed on hi s cont ent i on t hat he had not been a dj udi cat ed an unl aw ful pos s es s or of fi r earm s at t he t i m e he comm i t t ed t he § 922( g) ( 3) o f f e n se , an d w a s th e re f

o re n o t o n n o tice th a t h e w a s k n o w in g ly v io latin g th e sta tu te, th is a rg u m e n t a lso f a ils. T h is is e ss e n tially a v ari anton t he l os i ng ar gum entt hati gnor ance of the l aw e x c u s e s ille g a l c o n d u c t. C f

. U ni t ed Stat es v. N

api er , 233 F. 3d 3 9 4 , 3 9 8 (6th C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ) (“[A ] l eg all yrelev an t s ta tu s u n d er § 922( g) m ayar i s e i n t he abs ence of any for m al pr ocee di ng. For e x a m p le, § 9 2 2 (g )(3 ) p ro h ib its a n in d iv id u a l ad d icte d to

### - 23- cont r ol l ed s ubs t ance s fr om pos s es s i ng a fi r earm , y etan ind ividu al att ains the s tatu s o f a d rug ad d ict w ith o u t a co u rt p ro c e e d in g o f

a n yk in d .” ). A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude t hatt he fi r earm s and am m u n it ion en u m e ra ted in C o u n t O n e o f th e ind ict m en t are s ubj ectt o fo rfe i tur e bec aus e t heyw er e “i nvol ved i n” C h e e s e m a n ’s k n o w in g 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )( 3 ) v io la tio n .

B . E x c e ss iv e F in e s C la im H avi ng concl uded t hat § 924( d) ( 1) per m i t s for fei tur e of C heesem an’ s fi r earm s and amm uni t i on, w e mustdet er m i ne w h ethe r t h at fo rfe itu re v iolates t h e E igh th A m en d m en t’ s p ro h ib itio n o n e x c e s s iv e f in e s . 1. H i st ory of t h e E x cessi ve F i n es C l au se T h e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t p ro v id e s th a t: “E x c e ss iv e b a il s hal l not be r equi r ed, nor exce s s i ve fi nes i m pos ed, nor cruel and u n u su al pu n ishm en ts i n fli cted

. ” U

. S

. C o n st. am en d

. V III

. T h e re w a s li ttl e d e b a te su rro u n d in g th e a d o p tio n o f th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t an d n o d isc u ss io n re g a rd in g th e in c lu s io n w ith in th e A m e n d m e n t o f th e E x c e s s iv e F in e s C la u s e . See Ti l lm an v. L e b a n o n C o u n ty C o rr . Fa c ili ty , 2 2 1 F

. 3 d 4 1 0 , 4 2 0 n . 9 (3d C ir

. 2000)

. St i l l , t he Exces s i ve Fi nes C l aus e t r ace s i t s r oot s as far b a c k a s th e M a g n a C a rt a . S e e Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Pr e mis e s Kn o wn as RR No

. 1 Bo x 2 2 4 , Dal t o n , S c o t tTwp

. & Nor th Ab i ngt on Tw p. , Lackaw anna, P a. , 14 F. 3d 8 6 4, 875 n. 12 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( “B l acks t one s ay s t hatt he r eas onabl enes s o f a fi ne mustbe det er m i ned byr efe r ence t o M agn a C ar t a’ s pr ohi bi t i on on ex ce ssive am erc em en ts [a c o m m o n crim inal san cti o n ]. Speci fi cal l y , B l acks t one s ay s ‘ no m an s hal l have a l ar ger amer cementi m pos ed upon hi m , t han hi s ci r cumst ance s or p e rs o n a l e s ta te w ill b e a r: sa v in g to
. . . the tra d e r h is m e rc h a n d iz e .’” ) ( c itin g 4 W i l lia m B la c k s to n e , C om m entar i es * 3 7 2 ). T h u s, at t h e ti m e o f th e F ra m in g , the F o u n d ers under s t ood “‘ fi n e’

. . . t o m ean a paym entt o a s over ei gn as

### - 24- puni s hm entfors om e off ens e. ” B aj akaj i an , 524 U

. S. at327 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s & c itatio n o m itt e d ); s ee al s o A us t i n v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 0 9 U. S. 6 0 2 , 6 0 9 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ( “ Th e p u rp o s e o f t he E ig h th A m e n d m e n t . . . w a s to lim it th e g o v e rn m e n t’s p o w e r to puni s h. ”)

. I n tur n, t he Exces s i ve Fi nes C l aus e r es t r i ct s “t he G o v e rn m e n t’s p o w e r to e x tra c t p a y m e n ts, w h e th e r in c a sh o r in ki nd, as puni s hm ent for s om e off ens e. ” B aj akaj i an , 524 U

. S. at 3 2 8 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s & c itatio n o m itt e d ). T h e E ig h th A m endment i s ap p l i cabl e i f t he for fei tur e cons t i tut es a “f i ne” and i s vi ol at ed onl yi f t hatfi ne i s “exc es s i ve. ” See Ti l lm an , 221 F .3 d a t 4 2 0

. W hi l e t he Exces s i ve Fi nes C la us e w as i ni t i al l yappl i ed onl yt o i n pers onam a c tio n s, th e S u p re m e C o u rt e x p a n d e d its a p p lica b ili tyto c iv il i n r em for fei tur e pr ocee di ngs i f t he f o rf e itu re c o n s titu te d , in p a rt , p u n is h m e n t. S e e A u stin , 50 9 U. S. at610 ( not i ng t hats anct i ons can s er ve bot h a r emed ial and puni t i ve purpos e)

. T hi s hol di ng w as nar r ow ed s om ew hatbyt he Supr eme C our ti n B aj akaj i an , w her ei n t h e C o u r tnot ed t hat tra d iti o n a l i n r em f

o rf e itu re s w e re n o t p u n iti v e a n d w o u ld t herefore fal l ou t si de o f t he E i gh t h A m end m ent’ s prot ect i on s. 524 U

. S. at331. T he C our tfur t hernot ed, how ev er , t hat “[b] eca us e s om e re cent fede r al for fei tur e l aw s have bl ur r ed t he tra d iti o n a l d istin c tio n b e tw e e n c iv il i n r em a n d c rim in a l in pers onam f

o rf e iture, w e h av e h eld th at a m o d ern statu tory f o rf e itu re is a ‘f

in e ’ f o r E ig h th A m e n d m e n t p u rp o se s if it cons t i tut es puni s hm ent even i n par t , r egar dl es s of w het hert he pr ocee di ng i s s t y l ed i n r em o r i n pers onam . ” Id

. at 331 n. 6. T hus , w hi l e t he C our t has cl as s i fi ed § 924( d) ( 1) as r emedi al and th e re f o re a c iv il s a n c tio n , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. O ne Ass or tm ent o f 8 9 F i r e a r ms , 4 6 5 U

. S

. 3 5 4 , 3 6 3 -65 (19 8 4 ), fo rfe itu re p u rsu a n t to th is s e c tio n n o n e th e les s is su b jec t to E ig h th A m endment s crut i ny . H er e, t he G over nm entand C heese m an agr ee thatt he for fei tur e i s cr i m inal i n natur e s i nce i ti s par tof hi s cr i m i nal j udgm entand s ent ence . A defendantbear s t he bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng t hata for fei tur e cons t i tut es an

### - 25- u n c o n s titu tio n a l e x c e s s iv e f in e . See, e. g. , U

nit ed S t ates v. Jose , 4 9 9 F .3 d 1 0 5 , 1 0 8 (1 s t C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). 2 . U ni ted States v. B aj akaj i an : G ro ss D ispr o p o rtion a li ty I n B aj akaj i an , the S u p rem e C o u rt h eld th at t h e f o rfe itu re of a s um of m oneygr o ssly di s pr opor t i onat e t o t he under l y i ng cr i m e cons t i tut ed an Ex ce ssi ve Fi nes C l aus e vi ol at i on. B aj akaj i an in v o lv e d th e f o rf e itu re o f $ 3 5 7 ,1 4 4 f

o r f a il u re to r epor tt o t he U ni t ed St at es gover nm ents um s over$10, 000 t r ans por t ed by an i ndi vi dual l eavi ng t he countr yi n vi ol at i on of 3 1 U .S .C . § 5 3 1 6 (a )( 1 )( A ). See Baj akaj i an , 524 U

. S at324- 25. B aj akaj i an arg u ed t hatfor fei tur e of the ent i r e $357, 144 s um i nvol ved i n t he r epor t i ng offe ns e r an afoul of t he C ons t i tut i on. Id . a t 3 2 4

. Aft e rf i r s td e t e r mi n i n g t h a tt h e f o r f e i tu r e was p u n i t i ve, t he B aj akaj i an C our t r eas oned t hatt he nexts t ep i n an Exces s i ve Fi nes C l aus e ana l y s i s w as t o as cer t ai n w het her i tw as exce s s i ve. A ccor di ng t o t he C our t , t he “t ouchs t one of the cons t i tut i onal i nqui r y. . . i s t he pr i nci pl e of pr opor t i onal i t y : T he amount of t he for fei tur e mustb ear s om e r el at i ons hi p t o t he gr avi t yof t he offe ns e t hati ti s des i gned t o puni s h. ” Id

. at 33 4

. T h e C o u rt f u rth e r re a so n e d th a t b e c a u se “ ju d g m e n ts a b o u t th e a p p ro p ria te puni s hm en t f

o ran off ens e bel ong . . . t o t he l egi s l atur e” a nd beca us e “a n y jud i ci al det er m i nat i on r egar di ng t he gr avi t yof a p a rt ic u la r c ri m in a l o f

f e n s e w ill b e in h e re n tly im p re c is e [ ,] . . . [b] oth of t hes e pr i nci pl es couns el agai ns tr equi r i ng s t r i ct pr opor t i onal i t ybet w een the amount of a puni t i ve for fei tur e and t he gr avi t yof a cr i m i nal offe ns e. ” Id

. at 33 6

. In tu rn, t h e C o u rt a d o p te d a g ro s s d is p ro p o rt io n a lity st a n d a rd

. Id

. T o anal y ze pr oport i onal i t y , the B aj akaj i an C ou rtfi rs t exami ned t he natur e of the s ubs t ant i ve cr i m e, not i ng t hati tw as s o l e l y a r e p o r t i n g o f

f e n s e , u n r e l a t e d t o a n y o t h e ri l l e g a l a c t i v i t y, w h ic h re q u ir e d a “ w illf u l” m e n s re a f

o r c o n v ic tio n . Id

. at337. N ext, t he C ou rtop i ned t hat B aj akaji an di d “not fi t i nto t he clas sT hough our r eas oni ng di ffe r s fr om t hatof t he D i s t r i ct 9 C our t , beca us e w e re vi ew a di s t r i ct cour t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of t he C ons t i tut i on de novo, w e m ay aff i r m t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s rul i ng b a s e d u p o n th e a lte rn a tiv e re a s o n in g d is c u s s e d in th is s e c tio n .



### - 26- o f p e rs o n s f

o r w h o m th e s ta tu te w a s p ri n c ip a lly d e s ig n e d ,” i.e ., m o n e yla u n d e re rs , d ru g d e a le rs , o r t a x e v a d e rs . Id

. at 338. T hi r d, t he C o u rt not ed t hatt he s i x- m ont h m axi m um s ent ence and $5, 0 00 m axi m um fi ne r ecomm ended byt he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes evi dence d a “mi ni m al l evel of cul pabi l i t y . ” Id

. at 3 3 8 -3 9 . T h e C o u rt a lso in d ic a ted th a t itw a s a p p ro p ria te to compar e t he amount t he governm en t so u ghtt o for fei tw i t h t he m a x im u m f

in e p e rm itte d u n d e r th e s ta tu te
. Id

. at339 n. 14. Fi nal l y , t he C our tconcl uded t hatt he harm B aj ak aji an ca us ed w as m i ni m al s i nce hi s offe ns e onl yi nj ur ed t he governm enti n “a r el at i vel ym i norw ay . ” Id . at 3 3 9 ; s ee al s o P r em is es Know n as R R N o. 1 B ox 224 , 1 4 F

. 3 d at 87 5 (no ti n g that a re v iew ing co u rt s houl d eval uat e t he gr avi t y of t he offe ns e, t he har s hnes s of t he p e n a l t y , t h e s e n t e n c e s i mp o s e d o n o t h e rc r i mi n a l s i n t h e s a me j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h e s e n t e n c e s i mp o s e d f o r c o mmi s s i o n o f

t h e s a me crim e in o ther jurisdicti o n s an d the c u lpab il ity o f t h e o ff en d er). A ft ercons i der i ng al l t hes e fa ct or s , t he Supr eme C our t rul ed t he $ 3 5 7 ,1 4 4 f

o rf e itu re u n c o n s titu tio n a l. 3 . T h e F o rfe it u re w a s N o t G ro ssly D ispr o p o rtion a te to

Ch e e s e ma n ’ s Cr i me A ppl y i ng t he fa ct or s out l i ned i n B aj akaj i an , w e conc l ude t hatthe for fei tur e of Chees eman’ s fi r earm s and amm uni t i on w as not g r o s s l yd i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o h i s 1 8 U. S. C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 3) vi ol at i on. H er e, unl i ke t he r epor t i ng offe ns e i n B aj akaj i an , t he

9 ill e g a l p o ss e ss io n o f th e f ire a rm s w a s n o t th e o n lyill e g a lity a ss o c iat e d w ith C h e e se m a n ’s c rim e . R a th e r, in a d d iti o n to unl aw ful l ypos s es s i ng fi r earm s , C hees eman w as al s o abus i ng ille g a l n a rc o tic s .

### - 27- N ext , Che e s e ma n ’ s p r o t e s t a t i o n t h a th i s c r i me w as v ictim les s b e c a u se h e d id n o t p o ss e ss th e f ire a rm s a s a m e a n s to procure drugs is u n persuasi ve b ecause itdem on st rat es a m is u n d e r s t a n d in g o f

§ 9 2 2 (g )( 3 )’ s p u rp o s e . ( See A p p ell an t’ s B r . at32. ) C h ee sem an i s exac t l yt he t ype of i ndi vi dual for w hom t he s t atut e w as desi gned. Sect i on 922( g) ( 3) of t he G un C ont r ol A ctr efl ect s C ongr es s ’ vi ew t hatcer t ai n types of i ndi vi dual s , i ncl udi ng drug abus er s , m ent al i ncompet ents, and v io len t f e lo n s, sh o u ld n o t p o ss e ss f ire a rm s. T h is is e m in e n tly r eas onabl e cons i der i ng t hati nt oxi cat ed i ndi vi dual s s houl d not h a v e a c c e ss to , n o r p o s s e s s , fire a rm s b e c a u se o f p u b lic s a f

e ty c o n c e rn s . T h e re f

o re C h e e se m a n , a c ra c k c o c a in e a d d ict w ith unfet t er ed ac ces s t o an ar s enal of w eapons and amm uni t i on, w ho fac i l i t at ed ot hercr ack co ca ine addi ct s ’ acc es s t o t hat ar s enal , s quar el yfi t s w i t hi n t he cl as s of per s ons w hos e beha vi or the st atute aim s to cri m inalize. A d d it ion all y , C h e e sem an ’s c o n t e n t i o n t h a th e l e g a l l yo wn e d a n d o p e r a t e d a f i r e a r ms deal er s hi p form anyy ear s i s di s i ngenuous atbes t si nce he w as ab u sing d rug s d u ri n g h is ow n ers h ip o f X -R ing

. C h ee sem an ’s m i s r epr es ent at i on on hi s FFL appl i cat i on fur t herunder m i nes th is a rg u m e n t. Fi nal ly , even a s s um i ng t he fi r earm s and amm uni t i on w e re w o rth a p p ro x im a tely$ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 , this su m is n o t g ro ss ly d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o t h e c r i m e t o w h i c h C h e e s e m a n p l e d g u i l t y. W hi l e C hees eman c o rr e c t l ynot es t hat$500, 000 exce eds t he fi ne r ange of $7, 500 to $ 75, 000 r ecomm ended byt he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , whe n wei g h e d a g a i n s tt h e c i r c u ms t ance s s ur r oundi ng C hees eman’ s cr i m e, t hi s fac t ori s notdi s pos i t i ve. I n B aj akaj i an , t he am ount t he gover nm ent s oughtt o for fei tw as $357, 144, overs eventyt i m es t he $5, 000 m axi m um fi ne a u th o ri z e d b yh is G u id e lin e . See Baj akaj i an , 524 U

. S. at337- 38. H er e, al t houg h $500, 000 i s r oughl ys eventyt i m es gr eat er t han t he l ow end of C hees eman’ s G ui del i ne r ange, i ti s l es s t han sev en ti m es g rea ter th an the h igh en d o f h is G u ideline ran g e. In anyeve n t, w hen cons i der ed i n l i ghtof al l t he fa ct or s t hat

### - 28- B aj akaj i an i ns t ruct s cour t s t o cons i der , t he fa ctt hatt he w or t h of t he guns i s a l ar gers um t han t he G u idel i ne fi ne does not suffici entl you t w ei gh t he r em ai ning factor s t hat m i l i t at e against a f in d in g o f

u n c o n stitu tio n a lity . F u rth e rm o r e , as n o ted in B a jakaj i an , t h e G u i d e l i n e f i n e a l o n e i s n o t d i s p o s i t i v e a n d we m ayal s o cons i dert he s t atut or ym axi m um fi ne t hatC hees eman f a c e d

. S e e id

. at339 n. 14. H er e, t he s t atut or ym axi m um fi ne wa s $ 2 5 0 , 0 0 0

. T h u s , a f o r f e i tu r e v a l u e d a t $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 i s o n l yt wo t i m es g r e a t e rt h a n t h e ma x i mum f i n e p e r mi t t e d b yt h e s t a tu t e. C f

. U ni t ed Stat es v. W

al l ace , 3 8 9 F

. 3 d 4 8 3 , 4 8 6 -87 (5th C ir

. 2004) ( rul i ng for fei ture o f a $30, 000 pl ane w i l l ful l yoper at ed w i t houta fe der al r egi s t r at i on byan i ndi vi dual w i t h no cr i m i nal hi s t or yw oul d notvi ol at e t he E igh th A m endment w hen t he s t atut or ym axi m um fi ne w as $ 1 5 , 0 00)

. T hus , anydi s cr epanc y bet w een the val ue of the fi r earm s and t he G ui del i ne fi ne i s not cont r ol l i ng and t her efor e does not s er ve as t he bas i s forfi ndi ng an Exces s i ve Fi nes C l aus e vi ol at i on. 

### In sum , we c on clud e that the fo rfei ture of Ch ee se m an’s f irearms an dammun i t i o nw a s n o t g r o s s l y d i s p r o p o rtio n ate to h is 18 U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 3) offe ns e be c aus e he wa s abusin g dr ugs whi l e i l l e ga l l y

pos s e s s i ng fi r e arm s , he wa s part o f the c l a s s of pe r s ons whos e be havi or

the s t at ut e c ri m i na l i z e d, and the va lue o f th e f irearm s w as at m o st tw o tim es th e m ax im um p e n a l ty im po se d b y the st at ute. In turn, forfeit

ure of C hees em an’s fire ar m s andam

m un it ion d id n ot violat e the Ex ce ss ive Fines C lau se. I I I . Conc l us i on Fo r the fo re go ing r ea sons, we will affirm th e D is tric t C o urt’s O rd er o f

F o rf eiture.1 H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge , concurr i ng. I j oi n t he M aj o ri t y ’ s t hought ful and compr ehens i ve opi ni on i n every resp ec t s ave one : beca us e I agr ee w i t h t he M a j o r i t yt h a tt h e p h r a s e “ i n v o l v e d i n ” a s u s e d i n 1 8 U. S

. C. § 9 2 4 (d )(1 ) is u n a m b ig u o u s, I d o n o t b e li e v e re c o u rse to legislat ive h ist o ryis ne ce ssaryo r pro p er. W hen i n t erpr et i ng a s t atut e, i thas l ong been a cce pt ed t hat co u rt s sh o ul d onl yexami ne l egisl ati v e h ist o ryw h en the s tatu tory te x t is a m b ig u o u s o r o th e rw is e u n c le a r. S e e E x P a rte C o llett , 33 7 U

. S

. 55 , 6 1 (1949 ). If the texti s cl ear and u nam biguou s, o u r inq u iry en d s. B ed

R o c Lt d. v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 541 U

. S. 176, 1 8 3 , 1 8 6 (2 0 0 4 ); H

ay G r oup, I

nc. v . E

. B

. S. A cquis i t i on C or p. , 360 F. 3d 404, 406 ( 3d C i r . 2004)

. M or eover , w e have obs er ved t hatr el i ance on l egi s l at i ve hi s t or y“i s t o be avoi ded w heneve r pos s i bl e due t o t he inh ere ntunr el i abi l i tyof us i ng l egi s l at i ve hi s t or y as a bas i s foras cer t ai ni ng l egi s l at i ve i nt ent
. ” R oe v. C as ey , 6 2 3 F

. 2 d 8 2 9 , 8 4 2 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 0 ).
H er e, aft era convi nci ng anal y s i s of t h e text of § 9 2 4 (d ) ( 1 ), th e M a

jo rityq u ite rig h tlyc o n c lu d e s th a t th e p lain m eani ng of t he phr as e “i nvol ved i n” author i zes t he for fei tur e of C hees eman’ s fi r earm s . M aj

. O p. T ypes cr i pt at 14. I n r ej ect i ng C hees eman’ s r eques tt hatw e appl yt he rul e of l eni ty , t he M a jo ri ty sta te s : “ N o r i s th e p h ra s e ‘i n v o l v e d i n ’ a m b ig u o u s .” Id

. at15. D es pi t e t hi s concl us i on, t he M aj or i t yexpounds upon the legislat ive h ist o ri es o f the G u n C o n tr o l A ct an d the F ir ea rm O w ner s Pr ot ect i on A ctt o but t r es s i t s t extu al i nt erpr et at i on of2 § 9 2 4 (d )( 1 ). I

d. at16- 18. A tl eas ts i x of t he s i t t i ng J us t i ces of th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a v e c o u n s e le d a g a in s t th is a p p ro a c h

. See, e. g. , B oyl e v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 129 S. C t
. 2237, 2246 ( 2009) ( A l i t o, J.) (“ B e c a u se th e sta tu to rylan g u a g e is cle a r, th e re is n o n e e d to r eac h pet i t i oner ’ s r emai ni ng ar gum ent s bas ed on . . . l egi s l at i ve h isto ry. . . . ” ); Zednerv. U ni t ed Stat es , 547 U

. S. 489, 509- 10 ( 2006) ( Scal i a, J

. , concurr i ng in p artand conc ur r i ng i n t he j udgm ent ) ( “H er e, t he C our tl ooks t o l egi s l ati v e h i s t or yeven t hough t he r emai nderof i t s opi ni on ampl yes t abl i s hes tha tt he [ sta tu te] is u n a m b ig u o u s . . . U se o f leg isla tiv e h isto ryin th is c o n tex t . . . co n f

licts . . . w it h th is C o u rt’s r e p e a ted sta tem e n ts that w h en the l an g u ag e of the st atute i s p lai n , legislat ive h ist o ry is i rreleva n t. ”); Ci r c u i tCi t y S t o r e s , I

n c . v . A d a ms , 532 U

. S. 105, 1 1 9 (2 0 0 1 ) (K e n n e d y , J.) (“ A s th e c o n c lu sio n w e re a c h to d a yis d ir e c te d b y th e te x t o f [ th e s ta tu te ], w e n e e d n o t a s s e s s . . . legislat ive h ist o ry. . . . ”); R at z l af v. U ni t ed Stat es , 510 U

. S. 135, 147- 48 ( 1994) ( G i ns bur g, J

. ) ( “[W ] e do not r es or tt o l egi s l at i ve h ist o ry to cl o u d a st atuto rytext that is cl ea r. ”); C o n n e c ticu t N a t. B a n k v . G e rm a in , 5 0 3 U

. S

. 2 4 9 , 2 5 3 -5 4 (1 9 9 2 ) ( T h o m a s , J .) ( “W hen the w o rds of a s t atut e ar e unambi guous , . . . [t he] j udi ci al i nqui r yi s compl et e. ”) ( i nt er nal quot ati on m ar ks o m itt e d ); see al

so W i l l i am L. R udki n Tes t am entar y Tr us tv. C o m m ’r, 4 6 7 F

. 3 d 1 4 9 , 1 5 2 (2d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ) (So tom ay o r, J.) ( quot i ng T

o ib b v . R a d lo

ff , 5 0 1 U

. S

. 1 5 7 , 1 6 2 (19 9 1 )) (“‘[A ]l tho u g h a c o u rtap p rop ri atelym ayref er to a statu te’s l egi s l at i ve hi s t or yt o r es ol ve s tat ut or yambi gui t y , t her e i s no n ee d to d o so ’ i f th e statuto rylang u ag e is clea r. ”).
For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , I do notj oi n t hatpor t i on of t he C o u r t ’ s o p i n i o n t h a td e l v e s i n t o l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y.