Opinion
24-5114
09-18-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTWON PARTEE, aka Antwan Partee, aka Antwon Ellis, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESEE
Before: BOGGS, KETHLEDGE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
KETHLEDGE, CIRCUIT JUDGE
Antwon Partee pled guilty to knowing possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He now argues that § 922(g)(1) on its face violates the Second Amendment. We reject his argument and affirm.
Memphis Police Department officers saw Antwon Partee make a hand-to-hand drug deal in front of a gas station. When the officers approached Partee, he fled into a nearby convenience store. After a struggle, the officers detained him and took a loaded Ruger LCP .22-caliber handgun from his front pants pocket. Partee admitted that he kept the gun for protection. The officers then checked Partee's criminal record and found that he had a prior felony conviction and several misdemeanor domestic-violence convictions.
A grand jury indicted Partee for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count I) and possession of a firearm by a convicted domestic-violence misdemeanant, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) (Count II). Partee pled guilty to Count I in exchange for the Government's promise to move to dismiss Count II. He then moved to dismiss Count I on the ground that § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional. The district court denied his motion and sentenced him to a 77-month term of imprisonment.
We review the district court's denial of Partee's motion to dismiss de novo. United States v. Crayton, 357 F.3d 560, 564 (6th Cir. 2004). A facial challenge is the "most difficult" one to mount successfully, since the challenger must show that none of the statute's potential applications is valid. United States v. Rahimi, 144 S.Ct. 1889, 1898 (2024). And our court recently held that, because "most applications of § 922(g)(1) are constitutional, the provision is not susceptible to a facial challenge." United States v. Williams, ____ F.4th ___, 2024 WL 3912894, at *13 (6th Cir. Aug. 23, 2024). We therefore reject Partee's challenge here.
The district court's judgment is affirmed.