Introduction

United States v. James Anthony Brian Morelock (11th Cir. Jan. 10, 2025) addresses three principal issues:

• Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon-in-possession) survives under the Second Amendment framework set out in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen;
• Whether Morelock’s prior conviction for attempted armed bank robbery with kidnapping qualifies as a “crime of violence” for Sentencing Guidelines purposes;
• Whether the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress firearms evidence seized under a search warrant.

Morelock, a convicted felon, was arrested in 2019 after federal agents executed a warrant at his Georgia home and discovered twenty-two firearms, multiple sets of body armor, and a silencer. At his bench trial he admitted possession but challenged § 922(g)(1) as unconstitutional, disputed the classification of his prior conviction, and sought suppression of the search evidence. The district court rejected all arguments, convicted him, and imposed a one-year-and-one-day sentence (with a significant downward variance) followed by three years supervised release. Morelock appealed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit, per curiam, affirmed on all grounds:

1. Constitutionality of § 922(g)(1): Held that Bruen did not disturb existing precedent upholding the felon-in-possession ban. See United States v. Dubois, 94 F.4th 1284 (11th Cir. 2024).
2. Crime of Violence under the Guidelines: Concluded that attempted bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) inherently involves “force or violence, or intimidation,” thus qualifying as a crime of violence. Relied on United States v. Armstrong, 122 F.4th 1278 (11th Cir. 2024).
3. Denial of Suppression Motion: Found the warrant affidavit established probable cause through consistent, firsthand information from two relatives corroborating an anonymous tip. No material omissions or recklessness justified a Franks hearing.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Bruen (597 U.S. 1 (2022)): Established a history-and-tradition test for firearm restrictions under the Second Amendment. Morelock argued § 922(g)(1) fails that test; the court relied on Dubois.
• Dubois (94 F.4th 1284 (11th Cir. 2024)): Reaffirmed that § 922(g)(1) is consistent with historical restrictions on felon firearm possession.
• Taylor (596 U.S. 845 (2022)): Held Hobbs Act attempted robbery is not categorically a crime of violence. Morelock analogized to § 2113(a), but the Eleventh Circuit distinguished the statutory language.
• Armstrong (122 F.4th 1278 (11th Cir. 2024)): Clarified that § 2113(a)’s “force or violence, or intimidation” element means attempted bank robbery is a crime of violence.
• Trader, Martin, Anton: Controlled probable cause and staleness principles for search warrants under the Fourth Amendment.
• Franks (438 U.S. 154 (1978)): Governs when a defendant may obtain an evidentiary hearing to challenge omissions or misstatements in a warrant affidavit.

2. Legal Reasoning

A. Section 922(g)(1) & Bruen
The panel applied de novo review. Under Bruen, courts must show a firearm regulation fits within historical tradition. The court held that its prior decisions—particularly Dubois—already applied history and tradition analysis, and reaffirmed that felon-in-possession bans trace to longstanding prohibitions against dangerous persons possessing arms.

B. Sentencing Guidelines—Crime of Violence
The categorical approach asks whether the statute’s elements necessarily require the use of force. Section 2113(a) punishes “by force and violence, or by intimidation.” Thus, any conviction under § 2113(a) requires proof of threatened or actual force, qualifying it as a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2.

C. Probable Cause & Franks Hearing
Probable cause exists when, under the totality of circumstances, there is a fair probability that evidence will be found. Here, two relatives provided detailed, recent, firsthand observations of firearms and body armor in Morelock’s home—corroborating an initial anonymous tip. The court also found no evidence that agents knew of a family feud or other bias that would trigger a Franks hearing.

3. Impact on Future Cases

• Confirms that § 922(g)(1) remains constitutional post-Bruen, foreclosing as-applied challenges by felons.
• Solidifies that attempted bank robbery under § 2113(a) is categorically a crime of violence for sentencing enhancements.
• Reinforces Fourth Amendment standards for corroborated informant tips and the high bar for Franks hearings absent evidence of deliberate omissions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• De Novo Review: Appellate courts reexamine legal questions from scratch, without deference to the trial court.
• Categorical Approach: A method in sentencing law where the court looks only at the statutory elements of the prior offense, not the specific facts of the defendant’s conduct.
• Probable Cause: A reasonable basis to believe evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.
• Franks Hearing: An evidentiary hearing to challenge a search warrant affidavit for intentional or reckless false statements or omissions.
• Downward Variance: A sentence below the range recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines, based on individualized factors.

Conclusion

United States v. Morelock reaffirms key principles in federal criminal law: the enduring constitutionality of the felon-in-possession ban under § 922(g)(1), the classification of attempted bank robbery with kidnapping as a “crime of violence,” and rigorous standards for establishing probable cause and justifying Franks hearings. The decision cements the Eleventh Circuit’s post-Bruen landscape and offers clear guidance on how lower courts should approach similar Second Amendment and sentencing challenges.