United States of America v. Jeterron Williamson

Fort Worth, Texas, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

Relying on New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 24 (2022), and United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025), Williamson contended that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to him because his prior felony offenses are not analogous to any colonial era offense punishable by execution or estate
forfeiture. The district court concluded
that pre-Bruen caselaw foreclosed his Second Amendment challenge

Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, as amended, it is the judgment of the Court that the defendant, Jaterron Williamson, in 4:24-CR-260-P, is hereby committed to the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons for a period of FORTY-SIX (46) months. This sentence shall run concurrently with any future sentence which may be imposed in Case Nos. 1833595, 1832815, and 1833600, pending in the 396th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, which are related to the instant offense. The Court did not order a fine because the defendant does not have the financial resources or future earning capacity to pay a fine. It is further ordered that the defendant pay a special assessment of $100. Supervised Release is Ordered for a term of TWO (2) years. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 924(d) and 28 U.S.C. 2461(c), it is hereby ordered that defendant's interest in the following property is condemned and forfeited to the United States: a Smith & Wesson, Model M&P shield, 9-millimeter pistol, bearing Serial No. HDE4846. The Court recommends to the BOP that the defendant be allowed to participate in the Residential Drug Treatment Program, if eligible. The Court further recommends that the defendant be incarcerated at a facility as close to the Dallas, Fort Worth, TX area as possible. The Defendant is remanded to the custody of the US Marshal.

Affirmed:

See: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-10565-CR0.pdf