United States v. Isaiah Wise

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: June 26, 2025
• Docket: 24-1524
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________

No. 24-1524 ________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ISAIAH KAHLIL WISE, Appellant _____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2:21-cr-00511-001) District Judge: Honorable W. Scott Hardy ________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on June 10, 2025

Before: KRAUSE, PORTER, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: June 26, 2025)

________________

OPINION* ________________

PORTER, Circuit Judge.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. I

In 2021, Isaiah Wise visited a gun show while on state probation for felonies

including heroin and fentanyl trafficking, unlawful firearm possession, and endangering

the welfare of children. At the gun show, Wise purchased a pistol, magazine, and

ammunition before returning to his car. Law enforcement officers were conducting

surveillance at the show and observed Wise inside the car with a gun. Aware that Wise had

prior felony convictions, the officers confronted him and confiscated the gun, magazine,

and ammunition.

A federal grand jury indicted Wise under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possessing a

firearm after a prior felony conviction. He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that

§ 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to him. The District Court denied

his motion. Wise then entered a guilty plea but reserved his right to appeal the issues raised

in his motion to dismiss the indictment. The District Court imposed a sentence of 33

months of imprisonment plus three years of supervised release.

Wise now appeals, rehashing his as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) and arguing

for the first time that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face.1

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Bergrin, 650 F.3d 257, 264 (3d Cir. 2011).

2 II

In United States v. Moore, we considered whether disarming convicts on supervised

release was “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” 111

F.4th 266, 269 (3d Cir. 2024) (quoting N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597

U.S. 1, 24 (2022)). After conducting the historical analysis required under Bruen and

United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), we concluded that the government had met

its burden to show that “history and tradition support disarming convicts who are

completing their sentences,” including those on supervised release. Moore, 111 F.4th at

273. In United States v. Quailes, we extended Moore’s logic to state equivalents of federal

supervised release, “including a sentence of parole or probation.” 126 F.4th 215, 217 (3d

Cir. 2025).

Wise admits that Moore likely forecloses his Second Amendment challenges. He is

correct. Moore and its extension in Quailes control the outcome here. Wise was on state

probation at the time of his indictment and therefore § 922(g)(1) was constitutional as

applied to him. And since Wise’s as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails, his facial

challenge necessarily fails because he cannot “establish that no set of circumstances exists

under which the Act would be valid.” Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 693 (quoting United States v.

Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987)).2

* * *

2 The Government asserts that the appellate waiver in Wise’s plea agreement prevents him from now raising a facial challenge to § 922(g)(1). We need not consider that argument here because Wise’s facial challenge would fail regardless.

3 For the reasons discussed above, we will affirm the District Court’s order denying

Wise’s motion to dismiss the indictment.