· Code §22-4504(a). the latter charge was ultimately

·        
Class parked his Jeep in a permit-only parking
lot

·        
While Class was inside, USCP took note that his
Jeep was parked in the employees-only lot with out a permit. USCP saw what
appeared to be a large blade and a gun holster

·        
When the capital police intercepted him, he
Class admitted that he was the owner of the Jeep contained weapons

·        
Class was later questioned by the FBI at CPD
headquarters. He said he was a “Constitutional Bounty Hunter” and a “Private
Attorney General” who traveled the nation with guns and other weapons to
enforce federal criminal law against judges whom he believed had aced
unlawfully.

·        
Class was indicted on “one count of unlawfully
carrying or having readily accessible firearms on the Capital Grounds, in
violation of 40 U.S.C. 5104(e)(1), and one count of carrying a pistol in
public, in violation of D.C. Code §22-4504(a). the latter charge was ultimately
dismissed after the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,
in another case, held the D.C. Code provision unconstitutional” (Supreme Court
of the United States Blog, 2017).

·        
Class blamed the government for not posting
signs that would have identified him of the unlawfulness of his conduct, but not
under Section 5104(e)(1) was unconstitutionally vague, nor did the government perceive
hi to be raising such an argument

·        
Class’s case was originally scheduled for a
trial, but Class failed to appear for it, claiming that he was no longer going
to participate. Class was arrested on a bench warrant. From there he plead
guilty.

·        
The guilty plea constituted an “agreement to
waive certain rights afforded by the Constitution of the United States and/or
by 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’s
waiver of “Appeal Rights” included a specific “waiver” of “the right to
appeal the sentence in this case except to the extent” that the district court
imposed a sentence “above the statutory maximum or guidelines range” that the
court determined to be applicable

·        
The district court explained to petitioner that
by 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 was
somehow unlawfully or involuntary of if there were some other fundamental
defect in the guilty-plea proceedings” (Supreme Court of the United State Blog,
2017).

·        
Class “was competent and capable of making a
decision, 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 court
sentenced Class to time served (24 days of imprisonment), to be followed by 12
months of supervised release, and $250 fine” (Supreme Court of the United States
Blog, 2017).