Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-24-03151/USCOURTS-ca6-24-03151-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Marquis Lamonz Wellington
Appellant

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 24a0487n.06

Case No. 24-3151

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MARQUIS LAMONZ WELLINGTON, 

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO

OPINION

Before: MOORE, CLAY, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. After police officers found guns and drugs inside Marquis 

Wellington’s home, he pleaded guilty to possessing firearms as a felon and in furtherance of a drug 

trafficking crime. On appeal, Wellington argues for the first time that these two convictions violate 

his Second Amendment rights. Because his arguments fail, we affirm. 

I.

Police officers obtained a warrant to search Wellington’s home after investigating his 

potential gang ties and drug trafficking. Upon entering the home, they found four loaded guns, 

live ammunition as well as loaded magazines, fentanyl, and methamphetamine.

Wellington was indicted on four counts: two counts of drug crimes; possessing a firearm 

and ammunition as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(8); and possessing a 

firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).

Case: 24-3151 Document: 28-2 Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 1
No. 24-3151, United States v. Wellington

- 2 -

Wellington didn’t challenge the constitutionality of § 922(g) or § 924(c) at any time before 

the district court. Now, he argues for the first time that his § 922(g) and § 924(c) convictions 

violate his Second Amendment rights.

II.

Because Wellington didn’t challenge the constitutionality of his § 922(g) and § 924(c) 

convictions before the district court, we review his convictions for plain error. See Greer v. United 

States, 593 U.S. 503, 507 (2021); Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). 

Wellington contends de novo review is appropriate. Why? Because, he says, circuit 

precedent foreclosed his claim and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen was not on 

the books when he was in the district court. See 597 U.S. 1 (2022). So, Wellington argues we 

should apply de novo review because he had “good cause” not to raise a Second Amendment 

challenge. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3).

But that is wrong, because Wellington had ample opportunity to raise this challenge. Bruen 

was handed down in June 2022. Wellington was arrested two months later. He failed to raise a 

Second Amendment argument when he challenged various aspects of his presentence report, which 

was filed in December 2023 (roughly a year and a half after Bruen was decided). Nor did he raise 

a Second Amendment challenge at his sentencing hearing a month later in January 2024. So, 

contrary to Wellington’s arguments, there was no “good cause” under Rule 12 for him to not raise 

his Bruen-inspired challenges before the district court. 

At any rate, our precedent makes clear that the plain-error standard governs our review of 

Second Amendment challenges brought for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., United States v. 

Alvarado, 95 F.4th 1047, 1051 (6th Cir. 2024); United States v. Johnson, 95 F.4th 404, 415–16 

(6th Cir.), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 2619 (2024). To prevail under plain error, Wellington must 

Case: 24-3151 Document: 28-2 Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 2
No. 24-3151, United States v. Wellington

- 3 -

show “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” Alvarado, 95 F.4th at 

1051 (citation omitted). “We may then notice the forfeited error, ‘but only if (4) the error seriously 

affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” United States v. White, 

58 F.4th 889, 893 (6th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted).

We look to the law as it exists now to figure out if there is plain error. See United States 

v. Ritchey, 840 F.3d 310, 314 (6th Cir. 2016). Despite Wellington’s admirably careful research on 

the history and tradition of disarming dangerous people and groups, we have read the history 

differently: Our precedent forecloses facial challenges to § 922(g) like Wellington’s. United 

States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637, 657 (6th Cir. 2024) (noting that to succeed on a facial challenge, 

one must bear the heavy burden of showing that there is “no set of circumstances under which [a 

legislative Act] would be valid”) (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987)). 

And we decline Wellington’s request to overturn Williams. 

We also reject Wellington’s as-applied challenge to his § 922(g)(1) conviction. Individuals 

can bring as-applied challenges to their § 922(g)(1) convictions by showing they’re not 

“dangerous.” Id. at 663. To determine whether an individual is dangerous, courts must “make 

fact-specific dangerousness determinations after taking account of the unique circumstances of the 

individual.” Id. Wellington is dangerous given his convictions for drug trafficking and attempted 

domestic violence. See id. at 658–59. So, again the district court did not err, let alone plainly err.

Nor did the district court plainly err by not dismissing Wellington’s § 924(c) conviction on 

its own accord. “A lack of binding case law that answers the question presented will . . . preclude 

our finding of plain error.” United States v. Al-Maliki, 787 F.3d 784, 794 (6th Cir. 2015). Here, 

there is no binding precedent holding that § 924(c) conflicts with the Second Amendment. In fact, 

we have rejected post-Bruen challenges to § 924(c). United States v. Burgess, Nos. 22-1110/22-

Case: 24-3151 Document: 28-2 Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 3
No. 24-3151, United States v. Wellington

- 4 -

1112, 2023 WL 179886, at *5 (6th Cir. Jan. 13, 2023). So, Wellington’s § 924(c) challenge also 

fails.

* * *

Because Wellington’s constitutional challenges to his convictions fail, we affirm. 

Case: 24-3151 Document: 28-2 Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 4