United States v. Adan Smith

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 25-10494

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ADAN E. SMITH, a.k.a. Adan Smith, Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:24-cr-00305-TPB-SPF-1

____________________

Before NEWSOM, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Adan Smith challenges his conviction for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He

2

2 Opinion of the Court 25-10494

asserts that § 922(g)(1) violates the Commerce Clause, both facially and as applied to him. But as Smith concedes, our precedent forecloses his argument. The statute is facially constitutional because it contains an express jurisdictional requirement. United States v. Edwards, 142 F.4th 1270, 1285 (11th Cir. 2025). And it’s constitutional as applied to Smith because his firearms and ammunition traveled in interstate or foreign commerce at some point, which establishes the requisite “minimal nexus” between interstate commerce and his possession. See id.

AFFIRMED.