United States v. Cleate Wilson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: September 6, 2024
• Docket: 22-14332
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 22-14332 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 09/06/2024 Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit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 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-14332 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 09/06/2024 Page: 2 of 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 fire- arm by a convicted felon. He contends that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and exceeds Con- gress’ 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 chal- lenges to § 922(g), holding that the government proves a “minimal nexus” to interstate commerce where it demonstrates that the fire- arm 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.