United States v. Antonio DeWayne Powell

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: March 3, 2026
• Docket: 25-11879
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-11879 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 03/03/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11879 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

ANTONIO DEWAYNE POWELL, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 5:23-cr-00301-LCB-HNJ-1 ____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ABUDU and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Antonio Powell appeals his conviction for knowingly pos- sessing a firearm as a felon. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that USCA11 Case: 25-11879 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 03/03/2026 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-11879

section 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amend- ment, both facially and as applied to him. The government moves for summary affirmance. We grant the government’s motion and affirm. Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is- sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a mat- ter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the out- come of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the ap- peal is frivolous,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The government is clearly right as a matter of law. Id. Our precedents control this appeal and foreclose Powell’s arguments. In United States v. Dubois, 94 F.4th 1284, 1291-93 (11th Cir. 2024), we held that New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), did not abrogate our holding in United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768, 770–71 (11th Cir. 2010), that section 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated our decision in Dubois, and remanded for further consideration in the light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). Dubois v. United States, 145 S. Ct. 1041, 1042 (2025). On re- mand, we reinstated our earlier opinion and rejected the argu- ments that Powell now raises on appeal—that Bruen and Rahimi ab- rogated our holding in Rozier. United States v. Dubois, 139 F.4th 887, USCA11 Case: 25-11879 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 03/03/2026 Page: 3 of 3

25-11879 Opinion of the Court 3

893-94 (11th Cir. 2025). In Rozier, we held that “statutes disqualify- ing felons from possessing a firearm under any and all circum- stances do not offend the Second Amendment.” Rozier, 598 F.3d at 770–72 (accepting that Rozier “possessed the handgun for self-de- fense” but concluding that “[t]he circumstances surrounding Rozier’s possession . . . are irrelevant” due to his felony convic- tion). We GRANT the motion for summary affirmance and AFFIRM Powell’s conviction.