United States v. James Mobley

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 25-12543

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES MOBLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cr-00029-AW-MAL-1

____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

James Mobley appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that the district court should have dismissed

2

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12543

the indictment because § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional, as applied to nonviolent prior convictions, under the Supreme Court’s decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). But he properly concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by binding circuit precedent.

In United States v. Dubois, 139 F.4th 887 (11th Cir. 2025), on remand for further consideration in light of Rahimi, we held that neither Bruen nor Rahimi abrogated our prior decision in United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2010). Rozier upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) on the “threshold ground that felons are categorically ‘disqualified’ from exercising their Second Amendment right.” Dubois, 139 F.4th at 893. It construed the Second Amendment right as limited to “law-abiding and qualified individuals ,” and it “clearly exclud[ed] felons from those categories by referring to felon-in-possession bans as presumptively lawful.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Dubois analyzed both Bruen and Rahimi and concluded that Rozier remained good law. Id. at 892– 93. We noted that, like Rozier, Rahimi endorsed the view that “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill are presumptively lawful.” Id. (cleaned up).

We are bound by Dubois and Rozier under our prior-precedent rule. Id. at 892 (“[A] prior panel’s holding is binding on all subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc.”) (quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we must

3

25-12543 Opinion of the Court 3

reject Mobley’s challenge to § 922(g)(1) based on the Second Amendment. We therefore affirm his conviction.

AFFIRMED.