US v. Reginald Lockhart

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cr-00359-RJC-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999560221]. [14-4734]

Appeal: 14-4734

Doc: 27

Filed: 04/07/2015

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4734

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGINALD LASHAWN LOCKHART,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cr-00359-RJC-1)

Submitted:

March 31, 2015

Decided:

April 7, 2015

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron E. Michel, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne
M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4734

Doc: 27

Filed: 04/07/2015

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Reginald
possessing

a

Lashawn
firearm

Lockhart
as

a

felon,

§§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2012).
multiple

armed

robberies

pled
in

guilty

to

violation

unlawfully

of

18

U.S.C.

Based on his 2002 convictions for
and

assaults,

the

district

court

sentenced Lockhart under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”)
and imposed 180 months of imprisonment, the statutory minimum
pursuant

Lockhart

challenges

constitutionality of the ACCA as applied to him.

We affirm.

“We

to

§

924(e).

generally

constitutionality

On

review

of

a

appeal,

a

defendant’s

statute

de

novo.”

challenge
United

to

the

the

States

v.

Hager, 721 F.3d 167, 182 (4th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S.
Ct. 1936 (2014).

“However, when the issue is not presented to

the district court, . . . then we review for plain error.”

Id.

We conclude that three of Lockhart’s arguments were not
raised in the district court and, thus, are reviewable only for
plain error.

Id.; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 579

n.4 (4th Cir. 2010).
objective

—

First, Lockhart argues that the ACCA’s

incapacitating

offenders

until

the

age

at

which

their criminal careers normally end — could be achieved in his
case

without

minimum.

application

Second,

he

of

the

contends

ACCA’s

that

his

15-year
ACCA

mandatory

sentence

is

disproportionate to his underlying crime because he was never
afforded the intervening periods of incarceration between his
2

Appeal: 14-4734

Doc: 27

Filed: 04/07/2015

Pg: 3 of 5

predicate convictions, which, he claims, are necessary to make
imposition of a recidivist statute, like the ACCA, fair.

Third,

Lockhart claims that, pursuant to the Second Amendment and the
affirmative defense of justification, he had a legitimate right
to possess the firearm in certain circumstances and that the
ACCA impeded that right.
To establish plain error, Lockhart must show that:
error

occurred;

(2)

the

error

was

affected his substantial rights.

plain;

and

(1) an

(3) the

error

Henderson v. United States,

133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126 (2013); United States v. Price, 777 F.3d
700, 711 (4th Cir. 2015).

Even if Lockhart makes the required

showing, correction of the error lies within our discretion,
which

we

exercise

fairness,

only

integrity

proceedings.”

if
or

Henderson,

“the

error

public
133

S.

seriously

reputation
Ct.

at

affects

the

of

judicial

1126-27

(internal

alterations, citations, and quotation marks omitted).
“To be plain, an error must be clear or obvious,” such as
when

“the

establishes

settled
that

law
an

of

error

the

Supreme

has

Court

occurred.”

or

this

United

circuit

States

v.

Ramirez-Castillo, 748 F.3d 205, 215 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal
quotation marks omitted).

Because Lockhart has pointed to no

decision from this court or the Supreme Court concluding that
the ACCA is unconstitutional when applied to circumstances, or
challenged by arguments, such as his, he has not demonstrated
3

Appeal: 14-4734

Doc: 27

Filed: 04/07/2015

Pg: 4 of 5

that the district court’s application of the ACCA was clear or
obvious

error.

Thus,

Lockhart

has

not

met

his

burden

to

demonstrate plain error.
Only one of Lockhart’s claims was properly presented to the
court below, and we review it de novo.

Hager, 721 F.3d at 182.

Lockhart argues that the ACCA, when applied to a defendant who,
like

him,

served

no

intervening

sentence

between

predicate

convictions, is overinclusive because it incapacitates offenders
who are not career criminals, as traditionally defined in other
recidivist statutes.

To the extent Lockhart believes the ACCA

must withstand heightened or intermediate scrutiny, that belief
is erroneous.

United States v. Inglesi, 988 F.2d 500, 503 (4th

Cir. 1993) (citing Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 46465 (1991)).

When reviewing challenges of this nature to the

ACCA’s classification scheme, we inquire whether the “statute
makes

an

irrational

government purpose.”
(4th

Cir.

repeat

1995).

offenders

convictions

are

classification,

unrelated

to

a

valid

United States v. Presley, 52 F.3d 64, 68
We

—
not

conclude
such

as

that

the

Lockhart

separated

by

ACCA’s
—

inclusion

whose

intervening

of

predicate
periods

of

incarceration in its classification of armed career criminals is
neither irrational nor unrelated to a valid government purpose.
See id.; cf. Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 284-85 (1980).

4

Appeal: 14-4734

Doc: 27

Filed: 04/07/2015

Pg: 5 of 5

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5