Lilly was convicted in the Middle District of North Carolina after officers seized a loaded Glock 26 handgun from his hoodie pocket during a May 2023 encounter in Norwood. At the time, Lilly had four prior felony convictions, including two for drug offenses and two for firearm possession.
Lilly moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to him under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. The district court denied the motion, and Lilly pled guilty while preserving his right to appeal the denial of his Bruen motion.
The Fourth Circuit held that Lilly’s constitutional challenge was foreclosed by circuit precedent. The court cited United States v. Hunt, 123 F.4th 697 (4th Cir. 2024), which categorically forecloses all as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1), and noted that Lilly conceded this point in his briefing.
On the sentencing issue, the district court calculated Lilly’s Guidelines range at 70 to 87 months by setting his base offense level at 24. This calculation relied on two prior felony convictions for controlled substance offenses: a 2012 conviction for possession with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance and a 2014 conviction for possession with intent to sell or deliver marijuana.
Lilly argued that his 2014 marijuana conviction should not count toward the two prior convictions required for a base offense level of 24. He contended that because the 2014 conviction was consolidated with a more serious firearm offense under North Carolina law, it received no criminal history points, and thus should be excluded under Guidelines commentary.
The court rejected this argument, applying the framework from Kisor v. Wilkie. The court determined that the text of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) was not ambiguous and required only that the prior convictions be for controlled substance offenses, regardless of whether they received criminal history points.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the district court properly applied the Guidelines as written and that rewriting the Guidelines to include a criminal history points requirement was beyond the court’s purview.