CINCINNATI, OH – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed the conviction and 57-month sentence of Kalib Tucker, an Ohio man with a violent criminal history, who was found in possession of a firearm and narcotics just months after being released from prison.
Tucker, previously convicted of several felony offenses including a 2014 gang-related shooting and a home invasion, was released from prison in January 2023. By September of that year, his parole officer discovered a photograph showing Tucker with a firearm in his pocket. A subsequent search of his residence uncovered a loaded Glock pistol, fentanyl pills, psilocybin mushrooms, marijuana, and a speed loader.
Tucker, prohibited from possessing firearms as a felon, was arrested and charged under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). He pleaded guilty pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(B) agreement. While the plea agreement stipulated to a base offense level of 17, the district court varied upward to level 21 and imposed a 57-month prison sentence.
The district court cited several aggravating factors including Tucker’s quick return to criminal activity, the presence of additional narcotics, repeated misconduct while in pretrial detention, and the overall danger he posed to the community. The court also acknowledged mitigating factors such as his difficult upbringing, mental health issues, and his desire to support his daughter, but ultimately found an above-Guidelines sentence necessary to meet the goals of sentencing.
On appeal, Tucker raised multiple arguments, including claims of procedural and substantive sentencing error, and an as-applied constitutional challenge to the felon-in-possession statute. The court rejected all arguments.
The panel found no procedural error, concluding the district court had adequately explained its reasons for the upward variance and had sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors. It also rejected Tucker’s constitutional challenge, finding that his history of violent offenses, including a shooting into an occupied home and a burglary involving assault, demonstrated that he qualified as a dangerous felon under historical firearm regulation principles outlined in United States v. Williams.
Tucker also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise a constitutional challenge under Williams. The court declined to consider the argument on direct appeal, stating such claims are better suited for review under a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion where a full record can be developed.
The appellate case is United States v. Tucker, No. 24-4088.
