United States v. Danyelle Amund Phillips, Jr.
Court
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Importance
48%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0284n.06 Case No. 23-1640 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Jun 09, 2025 ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF DANYELLE AMUND PHILLIPS, JR., ) MICHIGAN Defendant-Appellant. ) ) OPINION Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; CLAY and THAPAR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Danyelle Phillips Jr. pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In his plea agreement, Phillips reserved the right to seek appellate review of the district court’s determination that section 922(g)(1) does not violate the Constitution on its face. He does so now. But our court recently held that section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional. United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637, 657 (6th Cir. 2024). As Phillips recognizes, this panel can’t overrule that decision, so we affirm.
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
Case Overview
Case Name: United States v. Danyelle Amund Phillips, Jr.
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Date: June 9, 2025
Citation: Unknown
In this appellate case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the appeal of Danyelle Amund Phillips, Jr., who pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The case centers on the constitutionality of this statute as it pertains to individuals with felony convictions.
Key Legal Issues
- Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1): Phillips challenged the statute, arguing it violates the Constitution on its face.
- Plea Agreement Reservation: Phillips reserved the right to appeal the district court's ruling regarding the statute's constitutionality.
Court's Decision
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, maintaining that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is constitutionally valid. The panel noted that it is bound by precedent established in United States v. Williams, which upheld the statute's facial constitutionality.
Legal Reasoning
The court's decision was primarily based on the precedent set in United States v. Williams, where the court had previously determined that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Constitution. The panel acknowledged that it lacked the authority to overturn this precedent, thereby reinforcing the legal principle of stare decisis.
Key Holdings
- The Sixth Circuit confirmed that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is constitutionally valid.
- The court emphasized the importance of adhering to established legal precedents in appellate decisions.
Precedents and Citations
- United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637 (6th Cir. 2024): This case served as the primary precedent for the court's decision in Phillips's appeal.
Practical Implications
The ruling in United States v. Danyelle Amund Phillips, Jr. reinforces the legal framework surrounding firearm possession by felons. It highlights the challenges faced by individuals with felony convictions who seek to contest the constitutionality of firearm possession laws. This case serves as a critical reference for future cases involving similar legal questions and underscores the importance of established judicial precedents in shaping the interpretation of federal statutes.
Legal professionals should note the implications of this ruling for clients facing similar charges and the potential limitations on constitutional challenges to firearm possession laws. The decision also reflects the ongoing legal discourse surrounding the rights of felons and the balance between public safety and individual rights.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools