defendant was actively using

based solely on the defendant’s “habitual or occasional” use of drugs. The Connelly court also pointed to the lack of evidence that suggests the defendant was actively using a controlled substance: “we do not know how much she used at those times or when she last used, and there is no evidence that she was intoxicated at the time she was arrested.” The Fifth Circuit similarly ruled that Section 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional as applied to Daniels. While Daniels used marijuana “roughly half the days of each month,” the jury was asked to find whether Daniels had used marijuana “recently enough to indicate that the individual [was] actively engaged in such conduct.” The court deemed “recently enough” to be too “nebulous,” such that the “the jury could have found Daniels guilty even while believing that he had not used marihuana for several weeks.” Given the absence of sufficient temporal proximity ดูหนัง24