9th Circuit upholds felon-in-possession conviction and 30-month sentence for Brieshanay Ford, rejecting challenges to gov't…
United States v. Ford
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit upholds felon-in-possession conviction and 30-month sentence for Brieshanay Ford, rejecting challenges to gov't conduct, selective enforcement, and the constitutionality of the federal gun law.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit affirmed Brieshanay Ford's conviction and 30-month sentence for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1). The court rejected her arguments that the government behaved outrageously, that federal prosecutors selectively enforced the law against her, and that the federal felon-in-possession statute is unconstitutional. The court found that misconduct by a local police detective could not be attributed to federal officials, and that prior Ninth Circuit precedent directly foreclosed her constitutional challenges.
Who it affects
This ruling most directly affects people convicted of felonies who are later found in possession of firearms and who challenge their federal prosecution on constitutional or government-misconduct grounds. It also reinforces for federal prosecutors and courts in the Ninth Circuit that the felon-in-possession statute remains enforceable even against those whose prior felonies were non-violent.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 21, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 21, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 21, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Brieshanay Quenise Ford was convicted of possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of the federal law commonly known as the felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1). She was sentenced to 30 months in prison. Ford appealed on several grounds, arguing the conviction should be thrown out and that her sentence was improper. Ford's first argument was that the government engaged in outrageous conduct that should bar her prosecution. Specifically, she pointed to threatening behavior by an LAPD detective named Vinton. The court rejected this, finding that the FBI special agent involved in the federal case did not know about the detective's threats. Because that misconduct could not be attributed to federal law enforcement, it did not taint the federal prosecution. Ford also argued the federal court should have used its own supervisory powers to dismiss the indictment, and that she was singled out for prosecution based on discriminatory reasons, a claim called selective enforcement. The court rejected both arguments. On selective enforcement, Ford failed to produce evidence showing that federal officers let similarly situated people off the hook, which is a required part of such a claim. The court also found no basis for using supervisory powers to dismiss the case since no constitutional or statutory right of Ford's had been violated by federal officials. Ford challenged the constitutionality of the federal felon-in-possession law itself, arguing it violated the Second Amendment, including as applied to people like her whose prior felonies were non-violent. The court said this argument was directly foreclosed by a recent en banc Ninth Circuit decision called United States v. Duarte, which held that the statute is not unconstitutional as applied to non-violent felons. Ford's prior convictions included vandalism, felon in possession of a firearm, evading a peace officer, and possession of a controlled substance for sale. Finally, the court found Ford's 30-month sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The sentencing judge considered her mitigating circumstances, including trauma and addiction and her recovery efforts, and weighed the seriousness of the offense. The court noted the judge was not required to consider whether Ford might have received a lighter sentence in state court. There was no dissent noted in the opinion.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-1022 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:22-cr-00200-PA-1 v. MEMORANDUM* BRIESHANAY QUENISE FORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted July 12, 2024 Pasadena, California Before: GOULD, NGUYEN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** Judge Ikuta, who died on December 7, 2025, was originally a member of the panel in this case. Judge Anello, a United States District Judge for the Southern District of California sitting by designation, was also originally a member of the panel and retired in October 2025. In accordance with General Order 3.2(h), Judges Gould and Forrest were drawn as replacement judges. Judges Gould and Forrest have read the briefs, reviewed the record, and listened to oral argument. Brieshanay Quenise Ford appeals her conviction and 30-month sentence for possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court did not err in denying Ford’s motion to dismiss the indictment based on outrageous government conduct. We review the district court’s ultimate decision de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Black, 733 F.3d 294, 301 (9th Cir. 2013). Neither state nor federal law enforcement “creat[ed],” “encourage[d],” or “participat[ed] in” the conduct for which Ford was convicted, which weighs against a finding of outrageous government conduct. United States v. Pedrin, 797 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Moreover, the district court did not clearly err in concluding that FBI Special Agent Corcoran did not know about LAPD Detective Vinton’s threats. Even if Vinton’s conduct were outrageous, it would not taint the conduct of federal law enforcement officials who did not know about that conduct. Cf. United States v. Robison, 644 F.2d 1270, 1273 (9th Cir. 1981) (indicating that vindictive prosecution by one sovereign did not taint the prosecution by a separate sovereign). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ford’s motion to dismiss the indictment based on its inherent authority. See United States v. Dominguez-Caicedo, 40 F.4th 938, 950 (9th Cir. 2022). “[W]e have inherent supervisory powers to order dismissal of prosecutions for only three legitimate 2 23-1022 reasons: (1) to implement a remedy for the violation of a recognized statutory or constitutional right; (2) to preserve judicial integrity by ensuring that a conviction rests on appropriate considerations validly before a jury; and (3) to deter future illegal conduct.” United States v. Matta-Ballesteros, 71 F.3d 754, 763 (9th Cir. 1995). Because Vinton’s conduct cannot be imputed to federal officials, the federal prosecution of Ford did not violate any statutory or constitutional right, rely on improper considerations, or involve illegal conduct. The district court did not err in denying Ford’s motion to dismiss based on selective enforcement under any standard of review. See United States v. Culliton, 328 F.3d 1074, 1080 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (noting ambiguity in caselaw regarding standard of review, but holding that defendant had no viable selective- prosecution claim under any standard of review). Ford failed to meet her burden of showing that the federal government’s enforcement of § 922(g)(1) had a discriminatory effect because she did not adduce any evidence that federal officers refrained from enforcing federal felon-in-possession laws against similarly situated defendants. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 920 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Accordingly, the district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Ford further discovery on this claim. Cf. United States v. Sellers, 906 F.3d 848, 852 (9th Cir. 2018). Ford’s arguments that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional are foreclosed under 3 23-1022 our precedent. See United States v. Duarte, 137 F.4th 743, 748 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc), cert. denied, --- S.Ct. ----, 2026 WL 135692 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2026). Duarte held that “§ 922(g)(1) is not unconstitutional as applied to non-violent felons” like Ford, who had been convicted of engaging in vandalism, being a felon in possession of a firearm, evading a peace officer, and being in possession of a controlled substance for sale. Id. Therefore, under the arguments Ford presented, § 922(g)(1) is not unconstitutional facially or as applied to Ford, even if her convictions were non-violent. See id. Ford’s within-Guidelines 30-month sentence is neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. The district court referred generally to the number of mass shootings in the United States and the relationship between illegal guns and gun violence to underscore the seriousness of Ford’s offense, and did not rely on this factual background as the basis for its sentence. Therefore, the district court did not plainly err by failing to disclose “all relevant factual information to the defendant” before sentencing. See United States v. Warr, 530 F.3d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(1)(C). The sentence was also substantively reasonable. The district court weighed the relevant factors on the record, see 28 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including Ford’s mitigating evidence of trauma and addiction and her recovery. The court was not required to consider whether Ford would have received a lower sentence in state court. Cf. Carty v. United 4 23-1022 States, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 30-month custodial sentence. See id. at 988. AFFIRMED. 5 23-1022
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.