Opinion
24-5129
09-20-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ADAIR DORSEY, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Before: SILER, GRIFFIN, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
MATHIS, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
A grand jury indicted Adair Dorsey for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Dorsey pleaded guilty to the offense. Prior to sentencing, Dorsey moved to dismiss the felon-in-possession charge, arguing that § 922(g)(1) violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. The district court denied Dorsey's motion to dismiss and sentenced him to 188 months' imprisonment. Dorsey timely appealed.
On appeal, Dorsey renews his argument that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment on its face. To succeed on a facial challenge, Dorsey would need to "establish that no set of circumstances exists under which [§ 922(g)(1)] would be valid." United States v. Rahimi, 144 S.Ct. 1889, 1898 (2024) (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987)). We review the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) de novo. United States v. Loney, 331 F.3d 516, 524(6th Cir. 2003).
Based on a recent published decision from this court, § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional. In United States v. Williams, we held "that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional on its face." 113 F.4th 637, 662 (6th Cir. 2024). We reasoned that: (1) "Congress may disarm" dangerous individuals; (2) "Section 922(g)(1) is an attempt to" disarm dangerous individuals; and (3) "most applications of § 922(g)(1) are constitutional." Id. at 657. We are, of course, bound by Williams. See Salmi v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 774 F.2d 685, 689 (6th Cir. 1985).
We AFFIRM the district court's judgment.