United States v. Adair Dorsey

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Decided: September 20, 2024
• Docket: 24-5129
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 24a0393n.06

No. 24-5129 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Sep 20, 2024 FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk

) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR v. ) THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ) TENNESSEE ADAIR DORSEY, ) Defendant-Appellant. ) OPINION )

Before: SILER, GRIFFIN, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.

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). No. 24-5129, United States v. Dorsey

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.

-2-