Court Opinion

ID: 9946284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 17:00:50.571203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:38.711803
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-1058     Document: 010111007334       Date Filed: 02/29/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         February 29, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                          No. 23-1058
                                                   (D.C. No. 1:22-CR-00186-RMR-1)
  JOSHUA WILLIS,                                               (D. Colo.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before PHILLIPS, BRISCOE, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.**
                     _________________________________

       A grand jury indicted Defendant Joshua Willis on one count of possession of a

 firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Defendant pleaded

 guilty to this crime. Defendant’s record includes three prior felony convictions—one

 for first degree criminal trespass, one for criminal impersonation to gain a benefit,

 and one for first degree aggravated motor vehicle theft.

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
 of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
 its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
       **
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
 argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 submitted without oral argument.
Appellate Case: 23-1058    Document: 010111007334        Date Filed: 02/29/2024    Page: 2

       Congress long ago prohibited felons—even non-violent felons—from

 possessing firearms. 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(1). Defendant moved to dismiss the

 indictment against him based on the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State

 Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), which created a new test

 for the scope of the right to possess firearms. Defendant brought both a facial and an

 as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of the ban.1 The district court denied

 Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defendant pleaded guilty but preserved his right to

 appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The district court sentenced Defendant to

 twenty-four months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.

       Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal. While his appeal was pending, we

 decided Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1197 (10th Cir. 2023), holding that Bruen does

 not expressly overrule our precedent from United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037

 (10th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) in

 Vincent.

       Even so, Defendant argues on appeal that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second

 Amendment—both facially and as-applied to him—because the Government has not,

 and cannot, establish a historical tradition of disarming felons under Bruen. But

 Defendant acknowledges that Vincent forecloses his Second Amendment challenges

 to § 922(g)(1), and he brings these arguments for preservation only.

       1
          Defendant also asserts that Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause
 authority in enacting the relevant portion of § 922(g)(1). Defendant recognizes that
 this claim is foreclosed by United States v. Urbano, 563 F.3d 1150 (10th Cir. 2009)
 and must fail but brings it anyway for preservation purposes only.
                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-1058   Document: 010111007334        Date Filed: 02/29/2024   Page: 3

       Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court’s

 decision upholding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

       AFFIRMED.

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Joel M. Carson III
                                            Circuit Judge

                                           3