United States v. Lewis

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: February 13, 2026
• Docket: 25-5045
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-5045 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 02/13/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 13, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 25-5045 (D.C. No. 4:24-CR-00288-SEH-1) MAKALE KAREEM LEWIS, a/k/a Maney (N.D. Okla.) Lewis,

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before McHUGH, MORITZ, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

A grand jury indicted Makale Kareem Lewis on two counts of being a felon in

possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He moved to dismiss,

arguing that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to him. The

district court denied the motion, so Lewis pled guilty to Count 1 of the superseding

indictment, reserving his constitutional argument for appeal. He was sentenced to

thirty months in prison followed by three years of supervised release.

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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 25-5045 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 02/13/2026 Page: 2

Lewis now renews his Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g), relying on

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and United

States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). But he concedes his arguments are foreclosed

by our precedent. See, e.g., Aplt. Br. at 7, 12-14. Indeed, in United States v.

McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1047 (10th Cir. 2009), we held that § 922(g)(1) does not

violate the Second Amendment. And since then, we have upheld McCane, even after

Bruen and Rahimi. See Vincent v. Bondi, 127 F.4th 1263, 1265-66 (10th Cir. 2025),

petition for cert. filed (U.S. May 12, 2025) (No. 24-1155). It does not matter whether

Lewis’s predicate felony prohibiting his possession of firearms was for a non-violent

offense. See id. at 1266 (“McCane . . . upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) for

all individuals convicted of felonies,” including “nonviolent offenders”); United

States v. Warner, 131 F.4th 1137, 1148 (10th Cir. 2025) (“[E]ven after Rahimi,

§ 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to non-violent felons.”).

Because Vincent holds that McCane remains binding, published precedent, we

affirm the district court’s judgment. See United States v. Lira-Ramirez, 951 F.3d

1258, 1260 (10th Cir. 2020) (“We must generally follow our precedents absent

en banc consideration.”).

Entered for the Court

Joel M. Carson III Circuit Judge