Court Opinion

ID: 9949856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 19:00:45.78186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:34:24.016785
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11604    Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 03/12/2024   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11604
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       LORENZO GAROD PIERRE,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-20321-JEM-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11604      Document: 28-1       Date Filed: 03/12/2024     Page: 2 of 2

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-11604

       Before NEWSOM, ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Lorenzo Pierre appeals his conviction for possession of a
       firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1),
       arguing that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to his case, in
       light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct.
       2111 (2022), because it violates the Second Amendment and is in-
       consistent with this nation’s tradition of firearms regulations.
               In United States v. DuBois, No. 22-10829, manuscript op. at 9-
       15 (11th Cir. 2024), we explicitly rejected this argument and ruled
       that our prior precedent in United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768 (11th
       Cir. 2010), in which we upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1),
       remains good law. See Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1300 n.8
       (11th Cir. 2001) (“Under the well-established prior panel precedent
       rule of this Circuit, the holding of the first panel to address an issue
       is the law of this Circuit, thereby binding all subsequent panels un-
       less and until the first panel’s holding is overruled by the Court sit-
       ting en banc or by the Supreme Court.” (citing Cargill v. Turpin, 120
       F.3d 1366, 1386 (11th Cir. 1997))). As such, Pierre’s argument fails,
       and his conviction is AFFIRMED.