USA v. Demetrius Murphy, No. 15-1602 (7th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued November 10, 2015 Decided November 23, 2015 Before No. 15- 1602 RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wiscon- sin. No. 14- cr- 109- jdp James D. Peterson, Judge. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff- Appellee, v. DEMETRIUS L. MURPHY, Defendant- Appellant. Order Demetrius Murphy is serving a sentence of 57 months’ imprisonment, which the dis- trict court imposed following his guilty plea to a felon- in- possession charge. 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1). He presents a single contention on appeal: that the district judge did not thoroughly consider his contention that U.S.S.G. §2K2.1(a)(3)(A)(i) is excessively harsh in setting the base offense level at 22 if the firearm was “capable of accepting a large ca- pacity magazine”—a term that Application Note 2 defines as a magazine able to hold more than 15 rounds. Murphy’s weapon, a Glock Model 17, had a magazine that could hold 30 bullets and actually contained 26 when the gun and magazine were seized. But No. 15- 1602 Page 2 for the large- capacity magazine, Murphy’s base offense level would have been 20 under §2K2.1(a)(4)(A). Murphy charges the district judge with ignoring his contention that the extra levels are an excessively severe response to the magazine’s capacity. But the district judge did not ignore that contention. Instead he remarked that a larger- capacity magazine allows a given gun to do more harm. Judges are free to disagree with the Sentencing Guidelines, as Murphy urged the sentencing judge to do. See United States v. Corner, 598 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc). But they are equally free to agree with the Sentencing Commission’s recommendations. The sentencing proceedings show that the judge agrees with the idea behind §2K2.1(a)(3)(A)(i). It is unnecessary for a judge to say more than that. This court ob- served, when addressing the validity of an ordinance that limits magazines to ten car- tridges, that a weapon able to fire more bullets without reloading can do more damage, holding all other things equal, than a weapon with a smaller magazine. Friedman v. Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406, 411 (7th Cir. 2015). This part of the Guidelines, and the sen- tencing judge’s statement, rest on the same idea. AFFIRMED
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
