United States v. Jones

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-3016 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 10/22/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 22, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 24-3016 (D.C. No. 2:21-CR-20055-DDC-1) MAURICE T. JONES, (D. Kan.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before HARTZ, EID, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Defendant Maurice T. Jones appeals his conviction for possessing a firearm as

a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We are, as conceded by Defendant,

bound by precedent to reject the arguments he raises on appeal. Exercising

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we therefore uphold the conviction.

In November 2017 a Kansas police officer followed Defendant’s car because

the officer could not read the rear license plate. After he stopped Defendant, he

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined *

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 24-3016 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 10/22/2025 Page: 2

approached the vehicle, “smelled burnt marijuana,” and conducted a search of the

vehicle. Aplt. Br. at 5. He “discovered a Glock handgun with a round drum magazine

on the floorboard in the back behind the passenger seat, and a backpack in the

passenger seat which contained a handgun magazine, baggies, and cocaine.” Id. In

September 2021 a federal grand jury in Kansas indicted Defendant on one count each

of “possessing with intent to distribute cocaine,” “carrying a firearm in furtherance of

drug trafficking,” and “possessing a firearm as a convicted felon.” Id.at 3. He was

acquitted on the first two counts.

Defendant raises three issues on appeal, solely to preserve them for further

review: (1) “Whether the district court legally erred by requiring [him] to provide

proof of [the officer’s] discriminatory intent before ordering additional discovery on

his claim of selective enforcement.” Id. at 2. (2) Whether the Second Amendment

permits the government to prohibit possession of a firearm by a convicted felon

whose conviction was (as is true of Defendant) a nonviolent felony. And (3) whether

Defendant could be convicted of possession of a firearm absent proof that his

possession “actually affect[ed] interstate commerce.” Id.

On the first issue, the Supreme Court has held that one claiming discriminatory

enforcement by the government “must demonstrate that the federal prosecutorial

policy had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory

purpose.” United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996) (internal quotation

marks omitted). And this court has required that a defendant seeking discovery on the

issue of selective enforcement first “must produce some evidence of both

2 Appellate Case: 24-3016 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 10/22/2025 Page: 3

discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent.” United States v. Alcaraz-Arellano,

441 F.3d 1252, 1264 (10th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

As for Defendant’s second and third issues, they were both resolved by United

States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037 (10th Cir. 2009), which upheld the constitutionality

of the federal ban for any convicted felon’s possession of a firearm, see id. at 1047,

and held that “if a firearm has traveled across state lines, the minimal nexus with

interstate commerce is met and [§ 922(g)(1)] can be constitutionally applied.” Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted). We reaffirmed the Second Amendment holding in

Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1197 (10th Cir. 2023).

This court’s precedents foreclose all three issues raised on appeal. We

therefore AFFIRM the court’s rulings and DISMISS the appeal.

Entered for the Court

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge