The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the federal sentence of Jamaion Wilson, who killed a man with a modified handgun after being sold a fake firearm in a gas station parking lot transaction gone wrong.
In *United States v. Wilson* (5th Cir. 2026), the appeals court rejected Wilson's constitutional and sentencing challenges, upholding both his conviction for unlawful possession of a machinegun and the district court's application of murder guidelines in calculating his sentence.
The case stems from a May 9, 2023, incident at a Valero gas station parking lot in Texas, where Wilson and two friends met an individual identified as D.J. to purchase a firearm for $300. After completing the transaction and leaving, Wilson discovered the weapon was fake.
Enraged by the deception, Wilson returned with a Palmetto State Armory Dagger pistol that had been modified with a "Glock switch" - a device that converts a semiautomatic weapon to fire like a machinegun. Wilson shot and killed D.J. with the modified weapon.
Wilson later confessed to the killing and pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a machinegun under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), which prohibits civilian possession of machineguns manufactured after 1986. The federal statute carries severe penalties and does not require that the weapon be used in the commission of another crime.
At sentencing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the court applied a Sentencing Guidelines cross-reference to second-degree murder, determining that this offense most closely reflected Wilson's actual conduct. Cross-references allow courts to calculate sentences based on the underlying criminal behavior rather than just the offense of conviction.
The district court concluded that while Wilson was technically convicted only of the machinegun possession charge, his sentence should reflect the gravity of using that weapon to commit murder. This approach resulted in a substantially longer prison term than Wilson would have faced for the weapons charge alone.
On appeal, Wilson raised two primary challenges to his conviction and sentence. First, he argued that his conviction violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Second, he contended that the district court incorrectly applied the cross-reference to murder in calculating his Guidelines sentencing range.
Writing for a three-judge panel that included Circuit Judges Wiener and Ho, Circuit Judge Don R. Willett rejected both arguments and affirmed Wilson's conviction and sentence.
The court's ruling on the Second Amendment challenge reflects the ongoing legal debate over the scope of constitutional gun rights following recent Supreme Court decisions. While the Second Amendment protects individual gun rights, federal courts have consistently held that certain categories of weapons, including machineguns, fall outside constitutional protection.
The appeals court's affirmance of the cross-reference application demonstrates how federal sentencing guidelines operate in cases where the offense of conviction may not fully capture the defendant's criminal conduct. Cross-references are designed to ensure that sentences reflect the true nature and severity of criminal behavior.
The case highlights the intersection of federal weapons laws and violent crime prosecutions. While Wilson could have been charged with murder in state court, federal prosecutors chose to pursue the machinegun possession charge, which provided a clear path to conviction given Wilson's confession and the physical evidence.
The ruling also underscores law enforcement's focus on prosecuting possession and use of modified firearms. Glock switches and similar devices that convert semiautomatic weapons to fully automatic fire have become an increasing concern for federal authorities, who view them as particularly dangerous weapons that pose significant public safety risks.
Wilson's case demonstrates how federal weapons charges can result in substantial prison sentences even without additional charges for underlying violent crimes. The application of cross-references in sentencing ensures that defendants cannot escape appropriate punishment simply because prosecutors chose to pursue federal weapons charges rather than state murder charges.
The Fifth Circuit's decision provides important precedent for similar cases involving modified weapons and violent crime. The ruling affirms that federal courts have broad discretion in applying sentencing guidelines and that Second Amendment challenges to machinegun prohibitions are unlikely to succeed.
The case also reflects the practical challenges of illegal gun transactions, where disputes over quality or authenticity can escalate to deadly violence. Wilson's reaction to being sold a fake weapon ultimately resulted in federal charges carrying much more severe penalties than the original transaction warranted.
With his appeals exhausted at the circuit level, Wilson's options for further review are limited. The Supreme Court rarely grants certiorari in routine federal weapons cases, making the Fifth Circuit's affirmance likely final.