United States v. Hatchet Speed

── United States v. Hatchet Speed ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: May 05, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 23-4308 Doc: 111 Filed: 05/05/2026 Pg: 1 of 36 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-4308 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HATCHET M. SPEED, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:22-cr-00165-MSN-1) Argued: December 12, 2025 Decided: May 5, 2026 Before WILKINSON, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Quattlebaum wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wilkinson and Judge Richardson joined. Judge Wilkinson wrote a concurring opinion. Judge Richardson wrote a concurring opinion. ARGUED: Roger Isaac Roots, JOHN PIERCE LAW P.C., Woodland Hills, California, for Appellant. Brian James Samuels, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Edward Andrew Paltzik, BOCHNER PLLC, New York, New York, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Amanda St. Cyr, Assistant United States Attorney, Danya E. Atiyeh, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4308 Doc: 111 Filed: 05/05/2026 Pg: 2 of 36 QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge: The National Firearms Act, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236 (1934) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 26 U.S.C.), criminalizes the possession of unregistered firearms. And the NFA defines firearms to include silencers. 1 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(7). The government prosecuted Hatchet M. Speed for possessing three unregistered devices that it felt met the NFA’s definition of a silencer. Speed, however, insisted that the devices were not silencers and, as a result, did not have to be registered. He argued that they were “solvent traps,” which are typically used to clean firearms, and that they didn’t function as silencers without modifications. Following a two-day trial, a federal jury found Speed guilty of three counts of unlawful possession of an unregistered silencer. He appeals his conviction, primarily arguing that the district court inaccurately instructed the jury on the definition of a silencer, that there is insufficient evidence that the devices meet that definition and that the government’s interpretation of that definition is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him. Alternatively, he argues possession of a silencer is protected by the Second Amendment. We affirm his conviction. First, the district court’s instructions on the statutory definition of a silencer were accurate. Second, the government introduced sufficient 1 “Silencer” and “suppressor” are two terms that are both used to refer to the same device. See Stephen P. Halbrook, Firearm Sound Moderators: Issues of Criminalization and the Second Amendment, 46 CUMB. L. REV. 33, 34 (2015). In truth, suppressor is likely the better term because these devices only actually “silence” firearms in the movies. Id. at 36. “Noise may be muffled or diminished, and maybe by only a few decibels at that, but it can still be heard.” Id. That said, we use the term “silencer” throughout this opinion because that is the term used in the relevant statute. See 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(7); see also 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25).