United States v. Sam

Case: 23-60570 Document: 71-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

____________

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

No. 23-60570

Summary Calendar FILED ____________ March 10, 2025

Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellant, versus

Kindle Terrell Sam,

Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:22-CR-87-1

______________________________

Before Graves, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

A grand jury charged Kindle Terrell Sam with possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). The district court granted Sam’s motion to dismiss the indictment, and the Government appeals. We review the constitutionality of Case: 23-60570 Document: 71-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2025

No. 23-60570

§ 922(g)(3) de novo. See United States v. Perez-Macias, 335 F.3d 421, 425 (5th Cir. 2003).

As here, we have previously considered an as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(3) in a case involving a motion to dismiss the indictment where the Government did not seek to prove that the defendant was unlawfully using a controlled substance at the time she was found in possession of a firearm. See United States v. Connelly, 117 F.4th 269, 272-73 (5th Cir. 2024). There, we concluded that, because there was no effort to show that Connelly, despite being a regular drug user, was intoxicated at the time she was arrested for possessing a firearm, applying § 922(g)(3) to her was unconstitutional. Id. at 282.

Likewise, in this case the Government did not seek to show that Sam was intoxicated or unlawfully using a controlled substance at the time he was found in possession of a firearm. See Connelly, 117 F.4th at 282. Nor did it seek to prove that Sam’s marijuana use was so extensive as to render him analogous to the dangerously mentally ill or a danger to others. See United States v. Daniels, 124 F.4th 967, 976 (5th Cir. 2025). Accordingly, the district court properly determined that § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional as applied to Sam. Though the Government asserts that § 922(g)(3) is constitutional in all its applications, it acknowledges our holding in Connelly and states that it raises the argument to preserve it for further review.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.