The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has summarily affirmed the convictions and sentence of Romuel Angrand, ruling that his main legal challenges were already settled by existing circuit precedent. The court granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance, concluding that Angrand’s arguments were clearly wrong as a matter of law, making a full hearing unnecessary.
Angrand was convicted on multiple serious charges, including conspiracy to commit access device fraud, possession of numerous unauthorized access devices, aggravated identity theft, possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
On appeal, Angrand raised two primary issues: first, he challenged the constitutionality of the federal law barring convicted felons from possessing firearms, citing the Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment jurisprudence, particularly the *Bruen* decision. Second, he contested how the district court calculated his offense level for the fraud conviction, arguing the court wrongly included the “intended loss” amount under the Sentencing Guidelines.
Second Amendment Challenge Deemed Foreclosed
Angrand’s most significant argument involved 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the statute that prohibits felons from possessing firearms. He argued this law was unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to him, referencing the standards set in *New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen*.
However, the Eleventh Circuit panel swiftly dismissed this claim, relying heavily on its own prior rulings. The court noted that when a defendant raises a constitutional challenge for the first time on appeal, review is limited to “plain error.” More crucially, the court stated it is bound by its prior panel precedent unless the Supreme Court has explicitly overruled it.
The opinion traced the Circuit’s handling of felon-in-possession laws post-*Bruen*. The court pointed to its decision in *United States v. Rozier*, which previously upheld § 922(g)(1), noting that the Supreme Court in *Heller* suggested such prohibitions were “presumptively lawful.”
While *Bruen* established a new historical test for Second Amendment challenges, the Eleventh Circuit had already addressed whether *Bruen* overturned *Rozier*. In a subsequent case, *United States v. Dubois* (in its final iteration, *Dubois II*), the Circuit held that neither *Bruen* nor the later Supreme Court case *United States v. Rahimi* (which upheld prohibitions on firearm possession by those subject to domestic violence restraining orders) abrogated *Rozier*. In fact, the court found that *Rahimi* actually “reenforced—not undermined—Rozier,” by reiterating that prohibitions on firearm possession by felons are “presumptively lawful.”
Because Angrand’s argument against § 922(g)(1) was already decided against defendants in binding circuit precedent (*Dubois II* and *Rozier*), the court found the government was “clearly correct, as a matter of law” on this point.
Sentencing Calculation Upheld
Angrand’s second contention focused on U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1), which governs sentencing enhancements for theft and fraud offenses based on the amount of loss. He argued the district court erred by using the *intended* loss amount, relying on commentary to the guideline rather than just the actual loss.
The court reviewed this issue for “clear error.” At the time Angrand was sentenced (January 2024), the definition of “loss” was primarily found in the commentary to § 2B1.1.
The Eleventh Circuit pointed to its recent en banc decision in *United States v. Dupree* and a subsequent panel decision, *United States v. Horn*. In *Horn*, the court determined that the term “loss” in the pre-2024 version of the guideline was *unambiguous* and incorporated the intended loss amount based on relevant conduct rules. Furthermore, the court noted that the recent Amendment 827 (which moved the definition into the text of the guideline, stating loss is the “greater of actual loss or intended loss”) was considered clarifying and applicable to cases pending on appeal.
The *Horn* decision confirmed that the standard in the Eleventh Circuit has long been to use the greater of actual or intended loss. Therefore, the district court’s reliance on intended loss was consistent with binding precedent.
Conclusion
Given that both of Angrand’s challenges were deemed foreclosed by established law in the Eleventh Circuit, the court determined that summary affirmance was appropriate under precedent allowing for such disposition when one party’s position is clearly right as a matter of law. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence without further elaboration.