United States v. Cleate Wilson

Opinion

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-14332

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CLEATE WILSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cr-00217-VMC-CPT-1

____________________

2

2 Opinion of the Court 22-14332

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Cleate Wilson appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He contends that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and exceeds Congress ’ powers under the Commerce Clause. We affirm.

Mr. Wilson recognizes that we’ve upheld 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1) against a Second Amendment challenge, see United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 769, 770 (11th Cir. 2010), but argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), has abrogated our precedent. We have, however, recently rejected this exact contention. See United States v. Dubois, 94 F.4th 1284, 1291-93 (11th Cir. 2024).

As for the Commerce Clause challenge, it is foreclosed by our precedent. We have “held that . . . § 922(g) is constitutional under the Commerce Clause.” United States v. Longoria, 874 F.3d 1278, 1283 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. McAllister, 77 F.3d 387, 391 (11th Cir. 1996)). We have also rejected as-applied challenges to § 922(g), holding that the government proves a “minimal nexus” to interstate commerce where it demonstrates that the firearm was manufactured outside of the state where the offense took place and, thus, necessarily traveled in interstate commerce. See United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708, 715-16 (11th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.