Court Opinion

ID: 9918832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 18:01:17.494245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:10.591759
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-1412     Document: 010110983968      Date Filed: 01/16/2024   Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                        January 16, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                         No. 22-1412
                                                   (D.C. No. 1:22-CR-00149-RM-1)
  MAURICE FARRIS,                                             (D. Colo.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and EID, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       Defendant Maurice Farris entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in

 possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and was sentenced to a

 term of imprisonment of thirty-seven months, to be followed by a three-year term of

 supervised release. Farris now appeals, arguing that the district court should have

 dismissed the indictment on the grounds that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the

 Second Amendment. After Farris filed his appeal, however, this court rejected the

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
Appellate Case: 22-1412      Document: 010110983968       Date Filed: 01/16/2024     Page: 2

 precise argument that Farris now asserts in his appeal. Consequently, exercising

 jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the judgment of the district

 court.

                                             I

          On May 4, 2022, a federal grand jury indicted Farris on a single count of being

 a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of § 922(g)(1). The indictment alleged

 that on April 19, 2022, Farris, who had previously been convicted of a felony,

 knowingly possessed a firearm and ammunition.

          Farris moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the Supreme Court’s

 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111

 (2022), “marked a dramatic shift in Second Amendment law” and effectively

 overruled Tenth Circuit precedent upholding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1)’s

 ban on the possession of firearms by convicted felons. ROA, Vol. I at 32; see United

 States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1047 (10th Cir. 2009) (rejecting Second

 Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges to § 922(g)(1)). After hearing

 arguments on Farris’s motion to dismiss, the district court denied the motion.

          Farris then entered into a written plea agreement with the government. Under

 the terms of the agreement, Farris agreed to plead guilty to the single charge alleged

 in the indictment. Farris also “agree[d] to waive appellate review of any and all

 motions filed by him in this matter, except those raised in his Motion to Dismiss the

 Indictment under the Second Amendment and the Court’s . . . oral denial of the

 Motion.” ROA, Vol. I at 62.

                                             2
Appellate Case: 22-1412    Document: 010110983968        Date Filed: 01/16/2024     Page: 3

       On November 18, 2022, the district court sentenced Farris to a term of

 imprisonment of thirty-seven months, to be followed by a three-year term of

 supervised release. Judgment was entered in the case that same day. Farris thereafter

 filed a timely notice of appeal.

                                            II

       Farris argues in his appeal, as he did in his motion to dismiss, that § 922(g)(1)

 is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Farris concedes, however, that

 after he filed his appeal, a panel of this court addressed and rejected the very same

 arguments that he asserts in his appeal. Specifically, in Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th

 1197, 1202 (10th Cir. 2023), cert. docketed, No. 23-683 (U.S. Dec. 26, 2023), a panel

 of this court “conclude[d] that Bruen did not indisputably and pellucidly abrogate our

 precedential opinion in McCane.” In reaching this conclusion, the panel in Vincent

 noted in relevant part that “[t]hough Bruen created a new test for determining the

 scope of the Second Amendment, the [Supreme] Court didn’t appear to question the

 constitutionality of longstanding prohibitions on possession of firearms by convicted

 felons” and that, in fact, “Bruen contain[ed] two potential signs of support for these

 prohibitions.” Id. at 1201.

       In a joint supplement filed with this court, Farris “agrees that his constitutional

 challenge to § 922(g)(1) before this Court is foreclosed by McCane and Vincent and

 [he] does not oppose a summary affirmance for that reason.” Joint Supp. at 2–3.

 Farris asserts only that “he seeks to preserve the claim for possible en banc

 reconsideration or Supreme Court review.” Id. at 3. In light of Farris’s concession,

                                            3
Appellate Case: 22-1412    Document: 010110983968         Date Filed: 01/16/2024    Page: 4

 we agree that a summary affirmance is appropriate. See United States v. Borne, No.

 23-8008, 2023 WL 6383732 at *1 (10th Cir. Oct. 2, 2023) (summarily affirming

 district court’s decision upholding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) in light of

 Vincent).

                                            III

       The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Mary Beck Briscoe
                                             Circuit Judge

                                             4