Opinion ID: 2446007
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Circumstances of the Particular Case

Text: Even if the plain error standard did not apply, the very nature of his constitutional challenge requires appellant to create a record which establishes the relevant facts. An as-applied challenge requires that the application of the [statute], by its own terms, infringe[] constitutional freedoms in the circumstances of the particular case. United States v. Christian Echoes Nat'l Ministry, 404 U.S. 561, 565, 92 S.Ct. 663, 30 L.Ed.2d 716 (1972); see also Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 546 U.S. 320, 329, 126 S.Ct. 961, 163 L.Ed.2d 812 (2006) (It is axiomatic that a statute may be invalid as applied to one state of facts and yet valid as applied to another.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Sanjour v. EPA, 312 U.S.App. D.C. 121, 128 n. 10, 56 F.3d 85, 92 n. 10 (1995) (as-applied challenges ask only that the reviewing court declare the challenged statute or regulation unconstitutional on the facts of the particular case); BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 261 (9th ed. 2009) (an as-applied challenge is a claim that a statute is unconstitutional on the facts of a particular case or in its application to a particular party.). The record shows that the statute was applied to appellant under the following circumstances of the particular case. The deputy marshal found the gun under a mattress in an apartment where appellant was staying. Appellant denied owning the gun, telling the deputy at the scene that he ha[d] held the gun but he had never shot it, and it wasn't his. He testified at trial, however, that he had never seen or touched the gun and that he had told the deputy he did not know anything about it. After hearing all the evidence, the trial court found that each element of the crime had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. At sentencing the government represented that appellant had no prior criminal convictions and that he was twenty-five years old.