United States v. Cisneros

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: February 26, 2026
• Docket: 25-1309
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-1309 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 02/26/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 26, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 25-1309 (D.C. No. 1:24-CR-00244-RMR-1) JONATHAN CISNEROS, (D. Colo.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, PHILLIPS, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Jonathan Cisneros appeals his 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) conviction. He

argues that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment. But he correctly

acknowledges that Tenth Circuit precedent holds otherwise. See Vincent v.

Bondi, 127 F.4th 1263 (10th Cir. 2025). So we exercise our jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 25-1309 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 02/26/2026 Page: 2

BACKGROUND

Early one morning in August 2024, Cisneros stole a truck from its

owner’s garage in Johnstown, Colorado. Police caught up to him later the same

day by using the truck’s built-in location monitor. Officers followed Cisneros

to Denver, before disabling and then stopping the truck. Cisneros and the other

occupants fled on foot. When police caught up to him, they found a loaded

9mm semiautomatic handgun in a fanny pack wrapped around his waist.

Because Cisneros already had a felony conviction, a federal grand jury

charged him with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Cisneros moved to dismiss the indictment

on the ground that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional both facially and as applied

to him. The district court denied Cisneros’s motion, recognizing that it was

bound by Vincent, 127 F.4th at 1266. But the district court acknowledged that

Cisneros had “preserved this issue for future decision by higher courts.” R. at

27.

Cisneros pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal the district

court’s order. The court sentenced him to thirty months’ imprisonment.

Cisneros timely appealed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an

indictment on constitutional grounds.” United States v. Brune, 767 F.3d 1009,

1015 (10th Cir. 2014). As part of our de novo review, we presume a challenged

2 Appellate Case: 25-1309 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 02/26/2026 Page: 3

statute is constitutional. Id. We thus require “a plain showing that Congress has

exceeded its constitutional bounds.” Id. (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being

necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear

Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II. In United States v.

McCane, we held that § 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on felons possessing firearms

did not violate the Second Amendment. 573 F.3d 1037, 1047 (10th Cir. 2009).

But in 2022, the Supreme Court made the Second Amendment’s

“constitutional standard . . . more explicit.” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc.

v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 31 (2022). In Bruen, the Supreme Court held that “the

standard for applying the Second Amendment” involves asking whether the

Amendment’s “plain text covers an individual’s conduct” and, if so, whether

the challenged government regulation “is consistent with the Nation’s historical

tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. at 24.

Then just two years later, the Supreme Court clarified its holding in

Bruen. See United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680, 691 (2024). The Court

explained that Bruen was “not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.” Id.

The Court held that “the reach of the Second Amendment is not limited only to

those arms that were in existence at the founding.” Id. Rather, the “appropriate

analysis involves considering whether the challenged regulation is consistent

with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition.” Id. at 692. In

3 Appellate Case: 25-1309 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 02/26/2026 Page: 4

Rahimi, the Supreme Court reiterated that its holding was not meant to cast

doubt on all firearm regulations, noting that prohibitions, “like those on the

possession of firearms by ‘felons and the mentally ill,’ are ‘presumptively

lawful.’” Id. at 699 (quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626,

627 n.26 (2008)).

Just last year, we reaffirmed McCane and upheld § 922(g)(1). Vincent,

127 F.4th at 1265–66. We “relied on Heller’s instruction that felon

dispossession laws are presumptively valid” and concluded that neither Bruen

nor Rahimi abrogated our holding in McCane. Id. at 1265.

Cisneros acknowledges that Vincent forecloses his argument but “raises it

to preserve it for further review.” Op. Br. at 3. He suggests that our holding in

Vincent was wrong because it relied on nonbinding dicta from Heller and

Rahimi and that, in any event, the government cannot provide a satisfactory

historical analogue to § 922(g)(1) to satisfy the standard from Bruen and

Rahimi. He also argues that even if § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional, it

cannot constitutionally be applied to “persons in [his] situation.” 1 Op. Br. at 11.

The district court denied Cisneros’s motion to dismiss by relying on

Vincent. We are in the same position. We cannot overrule a prior precedent

without a statutory change or an intervening Supreme Court decision. See

United States v. Salazar, 987 F.3d 1248, 1254 (10th Cir. 2021). We have

1 Cisneros does not explain who “persons in [his] situation” are or why § 922(g)(1) cannot constitutionally be applied to them. 4 Appellate Case: 25-1309 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 02/26/2026 Page: 5

neither here. So because § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment,

Cisneros’s facial challenge fails. See Vincent, 127 F.4th at 1266. And because

§ 922(g)(1) constitutionally applies to “all individuals convicted of felonies,”

Cisneros’s as-applied challenge fails, too. Id. Thus, the district court correctly

denied Cisneros’s motion to dismiss the indictment.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we affirm.

Entered for the Court

Gregory A. Phillips Circuit Judge