United States v. Collins (11th Cir. 2025): Post-Bruen Endorsement of § 5861(d) and the Limits of Plain-Error Second-Amendment Challenges

Introduction

United States v. Sidney Rashard Collins, No. 23-11847 (11th Cir. July 14, 2025), is a non-published opinion that nevertheless makes two points of continuing importance: (1) it becomes the Eleventh Circuit’s first post-N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen decision to address § 5861(d) (possession of an unregistered machine gun) and, albeit on plain-error review, to reaffirm the statute’s constitutional footing; and (2) it illustrates the degree of justification required when a district court issues a substantial upward variance from the Sentencing Guidelines.

The appellant, Sidney Collins, pleaded guilty to possessing a pistol converted into a fully-automatic weapon by way of a “Glock switch.” He raised, for the first time on appeal, a Second-Amendment attack on the criminal prohibition, and separately claimed that his 72-month sentence—well above the 24-to-30-month Guideline range—was substantively unreasonable. The Eleventh Circuit (Judges Jill Pryor, Newsom, and Kidd, per curiam) affirmed on both fronts.

Summary of the Judgment

Constitutionality of § 5861(d): Because Collins did not raise the Second-Amendment argument below, review was limited to plain error. There is no Supreme Court or Eleventh-Circuit precedent holding § 5861(d) unconstitutional; hence, no “clear” or “obvious” error exists, and the conviction stands.
Sentencing: A 72-month sentence (48 to 42 months above the Guideline range) was upheld. The district court’s reasons—danger posed by bringing an automatic weapon to a nightclub, flight from police, and risk to the public—were found adequate under § 3553(a), especially given that the sentence is below the 10-year statutory maximum.

Detailed Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708 (11th Cir. 2010) – reiterates de novo review of a statute’s constitutionality; serves as starting point before shifting to plain-error framework.
United States v. Anderson, 1 F.4th 1244 (11th Cir. 2021) – supplies the four-part plain-error test adopted here.
United States v. Morales, 987 F.3d 966 (11th Cir. 2021) – crucial for the rule that absence of authoritative precedent defeats “plainness.” The panel relies on it to dispose of the Second-Amendment attack.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) – governs appellate review of sentencing variances; invoked to justify a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and to note that a major variance needs a “more significant justification.”
United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) – furnishes the “definite and firm conviction” formulation for substantive unreasonableness.
United States v. Early, 686 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2012) – demand that the district court provide a justification “complete enough” for review when imposing an upward variance.
United States v. Grushko, 50 F.4th 1 (11th Cir. 2022)
United States v. Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2016)
United States v. Al Jaberi, 97 F.4th 1310 (11th Cir. 2024)

None of these precedents pre-dated Bruen with respect to machine-gun regulation. By invoking Morales, the panel effectively states that in a post-Bruen landscape, lower courts will await a definitive pronouncement from higher authority before finding plain error in federal firearms statutes long considered valid.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

2.1 Plain-Error Framework Controls the Second-Amendment Claim

Because the argument appeared for the first time on appeal, any error must be “plain” (obvious) and must affect substantial rights. The panel found none:

The statutory text of § 5861(d) offers no facial conflict with the Second Amendment.
No binding authority declares § 5861(d) unconstitutional—even after Bruen.
Consequently, the district court’s failure to strike the statute sua sponte was not plain error, and the conviction stands.

2.2 Substantive Reasonableness of the Upward Variance

The Eleventh Circuit tackled three key aspects:

§ 3553(a) Factors: Nature of the offense (automatic weapon in a crowded venue; flight; discard creating danger) strongly favored deterrence and public-protection goals.
Extent of Variance: 42–48 months above the Guideline range is large, but still below the 120-month statutory maximum, which the court deems “an indicator of reasonableness.”
Explanation on the Record: The district judge articulated detailed findings and repeatedly clarified that he did not rely on the pending murder allegations when fashioning the sentence.

3. Potential Impact on Future Litigation

Second-Amendment Litigation Post-Bruen: Defendants raising novel constitutional attacks for the first time on appeal face steep odds; absent Supreme Court or circuit-level holdings invalidating the firearm statute at issue, the plain-error hurdle remains insurmountable.
Machine-Gun Registration Cases: Though unpublished, this decision adds persuasive weight in the 11th Circuit that § 5861(d) survives Bruen, signaling to district courts that the statute remains enforceable unless and until higher courts rule otherwise.
Sentencing Practice: The decision confirms that district courts may diverge substantially from the Guidelines in firearms-possession cases where public risk is acute, provided they document their reasoning and stay within the statutory maximum.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Machine-Gun Conversion Device (“Glock Switch”): A small aftermarket part that changes a semi-automatic Glock pistol so it fires continuously with one trigger pull—legally classifying it as a “machine gun.”
Plain Error: An obvious and clear mistake affecting a defendant’s rights, reviewable on appeal even without objection below. Four prongs must be satisfied; lack of binding precedent usually defeats the second prong (“plainness”).
Sentencing Guidelines & Upward Variance: Advisory ranges that suggest (but do not mandate) prison terms. An “upward variance” occurs when the judge imposes a sentence above that range for reasons rooted in § 3553(a).
Statutory Maximum: The highest sentence allowed by Congress for the offense—in this case, 10 years (120 months). Anything below it is within lawful bounds.
Non-Argument Calendar (NAC): Category of appellate cases decided without oral argument because the panel concludes briefing suffices to resolve the issues.

Conclusion

United States v. Collins affirms that, even in the dynamic, post-Bruen Second-Amendment scene, long-standing federal prohibitions on unregistered machine guns remain intact—at least absent binding precedent to the contrary. The case also re-emphasises the formidable barrier posed by plain-error review and showcases the latitude district courts retain in imposing upward variances when public safety is imperiled. Going forward, defense counsel raising constitutional firearms challenges must preserve them early, and district judges considering major deviations from the Guidelines should continue to build a detailed record. In these twin respects, Collins stands as a concise but potent guidepost for litigants and courts alike.