· Class parked his Jeep in a permit-only parkinglot · While Class was inside, USCP took note that hisJeep was parked in the employees-only lot with out a permit. USCP saw whatappeared to be a large blade and a gun holster· When the capital police intercepted him, heClass admitted that he was the owner of the Jeep contained weapons · Class was later questioned by the FBI at CPDheadquarters. He said he was a “Constitutional Bounty Hunter” and a “PrivateAttorney General” who traveled the nation with guns and other weapons toenforce federal criminal law against judges whom he believed had acedunlawfully. · Class was indicted on “one count of unlawfullycarrying or having readily accessible firearms on the Capital Grounds, inviolation of 40 U.S.C.
5104(e)(1), and one count of carrying a pistol inpublic, in violation of D.C. Code §22-4504(a). the latter charge was ultimatelydismissed after the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,in another case, held the D.C. Code provision unconstitutional” (Supreme Courtof the United States Blog, 2017).
· Class blamed the government for not postingsigns that would have identified him of the unlawfulness of his conduct, but notunder Section 5104(e)(1) was unconstitutionally vague, nor did the government perceivehi to be raising such an argument · Class’s case was originally scheduled for atrial, but Class failed to appear for it, claiming that he was no longer goingto participate. Class was arrested on a bench warrant. From there he pleadguilty. · The guilty plea constituted an “agreement towaive certain rights afforded by the Constitution of the United States and/orby statue or rule” (Supreme Court of the United States Blog, 2017).
· Included “the right to appeal a conviction”had he been “found guilty after a trial.” The section describing petitioner’swaiver of “Appeal Rights” included a specific “waiver” of “the right toappeal the sentence in this case except to the extent” that the district courtimposed a sentence “above the statutory maximum or guidelines range” that thecourt determined to be applicable· The district court explained to petitioner thatby entering his plea, he “would be generally giving up his rights to appeal.”Class claimed to understand that. “if he thought that his guilty plea wassomehow unlawfully or involuntary of if there were some other fundamentaldefect in the guilty-plea proceedings” (Supreme Court of the United State Blog,2017). · Class “was competent and capable of making adecision, that he understood the nature and consequences of what he was doing,that he entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily and of his own free will,and that there was a factual basis for his entering a plea of guilty.
The courtsentenced Class to time served (24 days of imprisonment), to be followed by 12months of supervised release, and $250 fine” (Supreme Court of the United StatesBlog, 2017).