[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-15620

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:13-cr-00011-RS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

JONATHAN EVERETT GIBSON, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(July 7, 2015)

Before MARTIN, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 13-15620 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 Page: 1 of 4 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Jonathan Gibson appeals his conviction after pleading guilty to one count of 

being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 

924(e). For the first time, Gibson -- on appeal -- argues that § 922(g)(1) is facially 

unconstitutional; he says it violates the Commerce Clause and the Tenth 

Amendment. 

We generally review constitutional challenges de novo, but because Gibson 

failed to raise these arguments below, we review only for plain error. See United 

States v. Peters, 403 F.3d 1263, 1270 (11th Cir. 2005). Therefore, Gibson must 

demonstrate that error occurred, the error was plain, the error affects his substantial 

rights, and the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or reputation of the 

judicial proceedings. See United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th 

Cir. 2005). An error cannot be “plain” unless it is “obvious” and “clear under 

current law.” United States v. Humphrey, 164 F.3d 585, 588 (11th Cir. 1999). In 

addition, “only the Supreme Court or this [C]ourt sitting en banc can judicially 

overrule a prior panel decision” of our Court. United States v. Dean, 604 F.3d 

1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 2010). 

We have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as a valid 

exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power. See, e.g., United States v. 

Case: 13-15620 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 Page: 2 of 4 
3

Jordan, 635 F.3d 1181, 1189 (11th Cir. 2011); United States v. Dupree, 258 F.3d 

1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2001); United States v. McAllister, 77 F.3d 387, 391 (11th 

Cir. 1996). None of the recent Supreme Court decisions relied on by Gibson 

abrogated or reversed our prior decisions on the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1). 

Furthermore, considering § 922(g)(1) is a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce 

Clause power, the statute does not violate the Tenth Amendment. See Cheffer v. 

Reno, 55 F.3d 1517, 1521 (11th Cir. 1995).

In this case, no plain error occurred. And Gibson’s arguments are squarely 

foreclosed by binding precedent. 

Next, Gibson argues, for the first time, that the “minimal nexus” test set out

in Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 575, 97 S.Ct. 1963, 1969, 52 

L.Ed.2d 582 (1977), is no longer sufficient for establishing the required connection 

to interstate commerce under § 922(g). He points to the Supreme Court’s 

decisions in Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct 2077, 189 L.Ed.2d 1 

(2014), and Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 120 S.Ct. 1904, 146 L.Ed.2d 902 

(2000). Gibson maintains that a more significant connection to interstate 

commerce is now required for § 922(g) to cover intrastate possession and says that 

his conviction cannot stand because no significant connection to interstate 

commerce exists. As this claim is also raised for the first time on appeal, we 

review only for plain error. See Peters, 403 F.3d at 1270.

Case: 13-15620 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 Page: 3 of 4 
4

Neither Bond nor Jones involved § 922(g) or the “minimal nexus” test set 

forth in Scarborough. Thus, Scarborough remains binding precedent; and the 

“minimal nexus” test is the applicable standard for establishing a connection with 

interstate commerce.

We reject Gibson’s argument. And it is squarely foreclosed by binding 

precedent. Thus, the district court did not plainly err when it convicted Gibson of 

being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of § 922(g)(1), where the 

Government established (and Gibson acknowledged) that the pertinent firearm

previously traveled in interstate commerce. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-15620 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 Page: 4 of 4