Court Opinion

ID: 1002539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:12:27.049047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:37.840871
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 00-4151

STACY TYRONE ORGAN,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CR-99-36)

Submitted: August 15, 2000

Decided: September 20, 2000

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Timothy S. Coyne, FOWLER, GRIFFIN, COYNE, COYNE & PAT-
TON, P.C., Winchester, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch,
Jr., United States Attorney, Jean B. Hudson, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Stacy Tyrone Organ appeals his conviction and sentence for pos-
session of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a mis-
demeanor crime of domestic violence in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 922(g)(9) (West 2000). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Organ first claims that the district court erred in denying his motion
to dismiss the indictment, claiming that his prosecution for a violation
of § 922(g)(9) violated the notice and fair warning requirements of
the Due Process Clause as well as the Commerce Clause. We have
recently rejected this claim in similar cases, however, and find that
the district court correctly denied Organ's motion to dismiss the
indictment. See United States v. Mitchell, 209 F.3d 319, 323-24 (4th
Cir.), petition for cert. filed, June 7, 2000 (No. 99-9895); United
States v. Bostic, 168 F.3d 718, 723 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 527 U.S.
1029 (1999).

Organ also claims that the district court clearly erred in finding that
he did not qualify for a reduction in sentence pursuant to U.S. Sen-
tencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(2) (1998). Under
§ 2K2.1(b)(2), "[i]f the defendant . . . possessed all ammunition and
firearms solely for lawful sporting purposes or collection, and did not
unlawfully discharge or otherwise unlawfully use such firearms or
ammunition," his offense level should be decreased to level six.
Organ's son stated that Organ told him one of the bullets was "for
your mom," and the district court found Organ's son's statement to
be credible. Further, Organ had a history of violence. These facts
were sufficient to permit a finding that Organ did not possess the fire-
arm solely for lawful sporting purposes. Accordingly, the district
court did not clearly err in determining that Organ did not qualify for
the downward adjustment.

We affirm Organ's conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2