United States v. Deondre Steave

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: September 18, 2025
• Docket: 24-1977
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________

No. 24-1977 ____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DEONDRE STEAVE, Appellant ____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2:23-cr-00093-001) District Judge: Honorable Christy Criswell Wiegand ____________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) July 11, 2025 ____________

Before: KRAUSE, MATEY, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges

(Filed: September 18, 2025) ____________

OPINION * ____________

PHIPPS, Circuit Judge.

On February 4, 2022, after serving a 46-month prison sentence for being a felon in

knowing possession of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), Deondre Steave began a three- year term of supervised release. Within two months, however, he violated one of the

conditions of his supervised release. After he violated the supervised-release conditions

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. on several more occasions, a warrant was issued for his arrest. The marshals who executed that warrant on March 27, 2023, found a handgun and ammunition on his person. Steave

was then charged with a single count of being a felon in knowing possession of a firearm.

See id. In the District Court, he moved to dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment grounds, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied

to him. In exercising jurisdiction over the case, see id. § 3231, the District Court denied

the motion. Through this appeal, Steave now invokes this Court’s jurisdiction to renew those challenges, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which are reviewed de novo, see United States v.

Stock, 728 F.3d 287, 291 (3d Cir. 2013).

Steave’s arguments are foreclosed by binding precedent. In United States v. Moore, 111 F.4th 266 (3d Cir. 2024), this Court rejected facial and as-applied challenges to

§ 922(g)(1) for persons on supervised release. See id. at 273 & n.5. Thus, the judgment of

the District Court will be affirmed.