Opinion
CRIMINAL 21-413
10-24-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. WILLIAM LACELL DARK, JR., Defendant.
ORDER
CATHY BISSOON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
For essentially the same reasons stated in the government's opposition (Doc. 87), Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 85) based on Bruen and Range will be denied.
As this Court observed in U.S. v. Deamonte Law and U.S. v. Torrell Jones, the ruling in Range was a narrow one. Range v. Att't Gen., 69 F.4th 96, 106 (3d Cir. 2023). In this case, Defendant's “as applied” challenge fails because he was an active state probationer. U.S. v. Terry, 2023 WL 6049551 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 14, 2023) (Ranjan, D.J., presiding); see also Law, 2023 WL 5176297 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2023). As to this issue, specifically, the undersigned cannot improve on the reasoning in Terry, and Judge Ranjan's analyses are incorporated by reference. As for Defendant's facial challenge, the Court incorporates by reference its decision in Jones. Id., 2023 WL 6541040 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 6, 2023).
For these reasons, and for the others stated in the government's opposition, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 85) is DENIED. Defendant's only pretrial Motion having been resolved, the Court will enter an order setting trial and related deadlines.
IT IS SO ORDERED.