[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

19

- 11433

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:18

- cv

- 01531

- TCB

KENNETH E. FLICK

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Defendant

- Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(July 20, 2020)

B efore WILSON and JILL PRYOR

, Circuit Judges

, and CORRIGAN

, * District Judge

.

PER CURIAM:

* Honorable Timothy J. Corrigan, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

Case: 19-11433 Date Filed: 07/20/2020 Page: 1 of 32 Kenneth Flick appeals the district court ’ s grant of the g overnment’s motion

to dismiss his complaint alleging that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)

— which prohibits

felons from possessing firearms

— violates the Second Amendment as applied to

him

. 1

In 1987, Flick pled guilty to (1) copyright infringement

, in v iolation of 17

U.S.C. § 506 (a) (1982) and 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b)(1)(A) (1982) , and (2) smuggling

goods into the United States

, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545 ( 1954 )

. At the time,

b oth crimes were felonies punishable by imprisonment of up to five years. 18

U.S.C. §§ 2319( b)(1)(A) (1982) , 545 ( 1954 ) (amended in 2005 to make smuggling

punishable by imprisonment of up to 20 years )

. Flick was sentenced to four

months in a halfway house on the smuggling charge and five years ’ probation on

the copyright charge and was ordered to pay $184,549 in restitution to the

Recording Industry Association of America

. Flick’s sentence was later reduced to

two years’ probation and $60,000 in restitution. Flick contends he h as led an

exemplary life following his guilty plea, and he now seeks to purchase a firearm.

1 As an initial matter, we determine that Flick has standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) even though he has not y et been prosecuted under that statute.
Flick has an injury in fact because he is prohibited from possessing a firearm without being subject to prosecution by § 922(g)(1)

. See Lujan v. Defs. o f Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Moreover, that injury i s caused by § 922(g)(1) because Flick’s home state of Georgia restored his civil and political rights , including the right to bear arms , and the injury would be redressed by a hol ding that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Flick. See id.

Case: 19-11433 Date Filed: 07/20/2020 Page: 2 of 33 He claims that given his law

- abiding history since his conviction, § 922(g)(1)

violates the Second Amendment as applied to him.

In United States v. Rozier

, this Court affirm ed the rejection of a

constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1)

, conclud ing that “statutes disqualifying

felons from possessing a firearm under any and all circ umstances do not offend the

Second Amendment.” 598 F.3d 768, 771 (11th Cir. 2010). Flick contends that

because Rozier was a facial constitutional challenge rather than an as

- applied

challenge, it does not apply to his as

- applied challenge. W e disagree.

In Rozier

, we specifically addressed Rozier’s individual circumstances as a

felon before holding that § 922(g)(1) was a permissible restriction on his Second

Amendment right

. See id. at 770 , 772 (assuming that Rozier “possessed the

handgun for self

- defense” but concluding that “[ t ] he circumstances surrounding

Rozier’s possession

. . . are irrelevant ” because of his status as a felon). Our

reasoning in Rozier applies equally to Flick’s as

- applied challenge and thus

foreclose s it

. See United States v. Vega

- Castillo , 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir.

2008) (“[W]e are bound to follow a prior binding precedent unless and until it is

overruled by this court en banc or by the Supreme Co urt.” (internal quotation

mark s omitted)). The district court correctly applied Rozier and dismissed Flick’s

complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal.

AFFIRMED

. Case: 19-11433 Date Filed: 07/20/2020 Page: 3 of 3