United States of America v. Nikequis Lachristopher Green

Mobile, AL criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with felony possession of a firearm.



Defendant-Appellant Nikequis LaChristopher Green pled

guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1). Green's guilty plea came on the heels of three prior

convictions for two violent felonies and one serious drug offense:

Green was previously convicted in Alabama of two domestic-vio-

lence offenses and one marijuana-possession offense. So in accord-

ance with the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA”), the district

court enhanced Green's sentence, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), and or-

dered him to serve fifteen years in federal prison.



In the district court, Green objected to the imposition of

§ 924(e)'s sentencing enhancement on the grounds that it violates

the equal-protection principle inherent in the Fifth Amendment's

guarantee of "due process of law.” U.S. C ONST. amend. V. Specifi-

cally, he argued § 924(e) irrationally treats his state marijuana-pos-

session offense as a "serious drug offense” (because it has a maxi-

mum sentence of ten years) while not considering the materially

indistinguishable federal marijuana-possession offense to be a "se-

rious drug offense” (because it has a maximum sentence of fewer

than ten years). Had the federal government, and not Alabama,

convicted him of possessing marijuana, he points out, § 924(e)'s en-

hancement would not apply. In other words, Green complains he

will serve a longer sentence merely because Alabama, and not the

United States, convicted him of possessing marijuana with the in-

tent to distribute. And he concludes there's no rational basis for

USCA11 Case: 24-1152624-11526 Opinion of the Court 3

imposing a greater sentence merely because one sovereign, as op-

posed to another, prosecuted Green's crime.



The district court rejected Green's objection. We agree with

the district court. Congress has a rational basis for treating similar

drug crimes differently based on their state or federal character.

Congress, through § 924(e), heightened sentences to punish of-

fenders who repeatedly commit particularly condemnable acts, like

"serious drug offense[s],” and to deter people from committing

such acts in the future. When Congress affixes the maximum pun-

ishment for a sentence, it must consider how serious the crime is

with respect to the entire country.

The defendant was committed to the BOP for a term of 180 MONTHS. SRT 5 YEARS. Model search condition imposed. SA $100.00.



Affirmed