United States v. Kevin Deane Jones

Opinion

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-10227

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KEVIN DEANE JONES, a.k.a. Kevin Jones,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:22-cr-00021-WWB-LHP-1

____________________

2

2 Opinion of the Court 23-10227

Before JORDAN, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM:

In our prior opinion in this case—a copy of which is attached —we upheld Kevin Jones’ convictions and sentences (pursuant to guilty pleas) under 18 U.S.C. § 175(b) (possession of a biological agent and delivery system) and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (possession of a firearm by a convicted felon). See United States v. Jones, 2024 WL 1554865 (11th Cir. April 10, 2024) (Jones I). The Supreme Court subsequently granted Mr. Jones’ petition for certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded for reconsideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). See United States v. Jones, 145 S.Ct. 432 (2024) (Jones II).

As relevant for the remand, we previously rejected Mr. Jones’

Second Amendment challenge to his § 922(g)(1) conviction, a challenge which was based on New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). We did so because we were bound by the earlier panel decision in United States v. Dubois, 94 F. 4th 1284 (11th Cir. 2024) (Dubois I), which ruled that Bruen did not abrogate Eleventh Circuit precedent (e.g., United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2010)) holding that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional under the Second Amendment.

Following the remand in this case, the Supreme Court vacated our decision in Dubois I—the case we had relied on in affirming Mr. Jones’ § 922(g)(1) conviction—and remanded that case for reconsideration in light of Rahimi. See Dubois v. United States, 145

3

23-10227 Opinion of the Court 3

S.Ct. 1041 (2025) (Dubois II). The Dubois panel on remand again rejected the Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1), holding that Rahimi, like Bruen, “did not abrogate our holding in Rozier that [§] 922(g)(1) is constitutional under the Second Amendment.” United States v. Dubois, ___ F. 4th ___, 2025 WL 1553843, at *1 (11th Cir. June 2, 2025) (Dubois III).

We again affirm Mr. Jones’ felon-in-possession conviction.

We are bound by Dubois III, which forecloses Mr. Jones’ Second Amendment argument.

As to the other issues Mr. Jones raised on appeal, we adopt and incorporate the analysis and rulings from our prior decision. See Jones I, 2024 WL 1554865, at *1-*2.

AFFIRMED.