Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. AUNYIS CHERRY

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-08-06 Docket: 8:21-cr-00187-KKM-NHA-1 The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Aunyis Cherry’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and his 120-month sentence. Regarding the constitutional challenge to the conviction, the court applied plain error review because the argument was raised for the first time on appeal. Relying on binding precedent *United States v. Rozier*, which remains valid following Supreme Court decisions in *Bruen* and *Rahimi*, the court held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment for individuals with felony convictions. Regarding sentencing enhancements, the court affirmed the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) for possessing a stolen firearm. Citing *United States v. Richardson* and reaffirmed in *United States v. Dubois*, the court ruled that this guideline provision imposes no mens rea requirement and its application does not offend due process, even if the defendant lacked knowledge that the weapon was stolen. Regarding the four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense, the court addressed Cherry’s argument that it relied on acquitted conduct. The court applied the harmless error doctrine established in *United States v. Keene*. Because the district court explicitly stated it would have imposed the same 120-month sentence regardless of the enhancement ruling, the appellate court reviewed only whether the sentence was substantively reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Finding that the district court reasonably considered Cherry’s flight from law enforcement and significant criminal history to justify an upward variance to the statutory maximum, the court concluded any potential error in applying the enhancement was harmless. As a result of this decision, Cherry’s conviction and sentence stand as imposed by the district court, with no remand for resentencing required. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.