Opinion ID: 172540
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Achieving the Purposes of Sentencing

Text: Mr. Nolan’s sentence was not greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing. Mr. Nolan argues that the sentence was greater than necessary because he only possessed the firearm momentarily, and because his previous offenses were “minor marijuana offenses.”2 Mr. Nolan’s arguments fail. First, there is no element of time required to establish possession of a firearm within 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). That Mr. Nolan may have possessed the firearm briefly does not make him less guilty of the charged offense—to which he pleaded guilty. In addition, Mr. Nolan had pleaded guilty four times to possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Congress has determined that a person who has been convicted of that offense at least three times, and who then possesses a firearm, should be sentenced to at least fifteen years in prison, regardless of any mitigating circumstances. Congress is entitled to make that judgment, and because of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), this court has no discretion to reduce Mr. Nolan’s sentence based on the circumstances of his predicate crimes.