Reinforcing Constructive Possession and Discretionary Sentencing Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)

Introduction

United States v. Kenneth Kunkel, decided by the Sixth Circuit on June 5, 2025, addresses two key legal issues in felon-in-possession prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1):

The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish actual or constructive possession of a firearm.
The scope of a district court’s discretion to impose an above-Guidelines sentence based on a defendant’s prior criminal history.

Kenneth Kunkel was convicted after eyewitness testimony that he threatened a third party with a gun and law enforcement testimony that a handgun was found next to a shirt in his vehicle, visible and within his reach. The district court imposed a 120-month sentence—substantially above the 63–78-month Guidelines range—citing Kunkel’s violent background and risk of reoffense. Kunkel appealed both the denial of his judgment-of-acquittal motion and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

Summary of the Judgment

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction and the sentence. In upholding the jury verdict, the court held that:

A rational jury could infer possession from testimony that the firearm was visible, accessible, and that no one else occupied the vehicle.
Circumstantial evidence alone sufficed to prove constructive possession.

On sentencing, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s upward variance. It confirmed that a sentencing court may consider prior violent conduct beyond what the Guidelines already account for, provided the court explains why additional weight is appropriate.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Gardner, 488 F.3d 700 (6th Cir. 2007): Defines actual vs. constructive possession.
United States v. Arnold, 486 F.3d 177 (6th Cir. 2007) (en banc): Affirms that circumstantial evidence can alone sustain a conviction.
United States v. Houston, 792 F.3d 663 (6th Cir. 2015): Sets the standard for reviewing denial of a judgment of acquittal.
United States v. Wettstain, 618 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2010): Holds that circumstantial evidence need not eliminate every reasonable hypothesis except guilt.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007): Establishes the abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing reviews.
United States v. Morris, 71 F.4th 475 (6th Cir. 2023): Permits consideration of criminal history beyond the Guidelines.
United States v. Nixon, 664 F.3d 624 (6th Cir. 2011): Requires explanation when giving extra weight to certain factors.

Legal Reasoning

To sustain a § 922(g)(1) conviction, the government must prove: (1) felon status, (2) knowledge of that status, (3) knowing possession of a firearm, and (4) interstate-commerce nexus. The court accepted the stipulations on elements (1), (2), and (4), leaving only possession in dispute.

Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the jury, the court held that testimony establishing the gun’s visibility and accessibility in Kunkel’s vehicle satisfied the possession element. The appellant’s argument that a shirt may have concealed the gun did not create a reasonable doubt in light of the officer’s clear, unrebutted testimony.

On sentencing, the Sixth Circuit applied a deferential abuse-of-discretion review. It held that the district court properly weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors—particularly Kunkel’s violent history and risk of recidivism—and provided a reasoned basis for an upward variance beyond the Guidelines range.

Impact

This decision reaffirms that:

Circumstantial evidence—such as a weapon’s visible placement in a vehicle—can establish constructive possession under § 922(g)(1).
District courts retain broad discretion to impose upward variances based on criminal history, so long as they explain the added weight afforded to such history.

Lower courts will likely cite this case when evaluating similar possession disputes and when justifying non-Guidelines sentences for repeat violent offenders.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Actual vs. Constructive Possession: Actual possession means physically holding the weapon; constructive possession means having the ability and intent to control it, even if not directly in hand.
Circumstantial Evidence: Indirect proof that allows a factfinder to infer a conclusion from surrounding facts, without direct eyewitness testimony to each element.
Judgment of Acquittal: A request that the court overturn a jury verdict due to insufficient evidence, viewed under the “light most favorable to the prosecution”.
Sentencing Variance: A deliberate decision by the sentencing court to impose a term above or below the Sentencing Guidelines range, based on the factors set out in § 3553(a).
Abuse-of-Discretion Review: An appellate standard that upholds a lower court’s decision unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or based on legal error.

Conclusion

United States v. Kunkel clarifies that the visible and reachable placement of a firearm in a vehicle suffices to prove constructive possession under § 922(g)(1) and confirms that sentencing courts may impose upward variances grounded in a defendant’s violent history—beyond the Guidelines—provided they articulate a reasoned justification. These principles will guide future felon-in-possession prosecutions and sentencing determinations.