{"ID":63896,"name":"Beaird v. United States","href":"https:\/\/api.oyez.org\/cases\/2026\/25-5343","view_count":0,"docket_number":"25-5343","additional_docket_numbers":null,"manner_of_jurisdiction":"Writ of \u003Ci\u003Ecertiorari\u003C\/i\u003E","first_party":"Kendrick Jarrell Beaird","second_party":"United States of America","timeline":[{"event":"Granted","dates":[1776661200],"href":"https:\/\/api.oyez.org\/case_timeline\/case_timeline\/55820"}],"lower_court":{"ID":10,"name":"United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","href":"https:\/\/api.oyez.org\/taxonomy\/term\/10"},"facts_of_the_case":"\u003Cp\u003EKendrick Jarrell Beaird pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. During sentencing, the district court applied a penalty enhancement under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines because Beaird possessed a \u201clarge capacity magazine.\u201d While the text of the Guidelines does not define that term, the accompanying official Commentary specifies that any magazine capable of holding more than 15 rounds triggers the increased penalty.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003EBeaird possessed a magazine that held 17 rounds. He argued that the district court erred by relying on the Commentary to define a term missing from the actual Guidelines. This challenge focuses on the level of deference courts must grant to supplemental Commentary, especially when that Commentary expands the scope of sentencing enhancements beyond the written text of the Guidelines.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003EThe district court sentenced Beaird to 72 months in prison and three years of supervised release. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that prior circuit precedent foreclosed Beaird\u2019s challenge to the court\u2019s reliance on the Guidelines commentary.\u003C\/p\u003E\n","question":"\u003Cp\u003EDoes Stinson v. United States still correctly state the rule for deference that courts must give the Commentary of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines?\u003C\/p\u003E\n","conclusion":null,"advocates":null,"oral_argument_audio":null,"citation":{"volume":null,"page":null,"year":null,"href":"https:\/\/api.oyez.org\/case_citation\/case_citation\/28151"},"decisions":null,"first_party_label":"Petitioner","second_party_label":"Respondent","heard_by":[null],"decided_by":null,"term":"2026","location":null,"opinion_announcement":null,"description":"A case in which the Court will decide whether Stinson v. United States still correctly states the rule for deference that courts must give the Commentary of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.","written_opinion":null,"related_cases":null,"justia_url":"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/2026\/25-5343\/","argument2_url":null}