United States v. Mayfield

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-5020 Document: 010111062551 Date Filed: 06/10/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 10, 2024 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 24-5020 (D.C. No. 4:22-CR-00242-GKF-1) BRANDON LEE MAYFIELD, (N.D. Okla.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before PHILLIPS, BRISCOE, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.** _________________________________

A grand jury indicted Defendant Brandon Lee Mayfield on one count of

possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Defendant pleaded

guilty to this crime. Defendant’s record includes four prior felony convictions—

three for domestic assault and battery by strangulation; and one for domestic assault

and battery, second offense.

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. ** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Appellate Case: 24-5020 Document: 010111062551 Date Filed: 06/10/2024 Page: 2

Congress long ago prohibited felons from possessing firearms. 18 U.S.C

§ 922(g)(1). Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment against him based on the

Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v.

Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), which created a new test for the scope of the right to

possess firearms. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment under Bruen.

The district court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defendant pleaded guilty

but preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The district

court sentenced Defendant to 180 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised

release.

Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal. Before Defendant’s sentencing, we

decided Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1197 (10th Cir. 2023), holding that Bruen does

not expressly overrule our precedent from United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037

(10th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) in

Vincent.

Even so, Defendant argues on appeal that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second

Amendment because the Government has not, and cannot, establish a historical

tradition of disarming felons under Bruen. But Defendant acknowledges that Vincent

forecloses his Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1), and he brings these

arguments for preservation only.

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court’s

decision rejecting Defendant’s attack on the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1).

2 Appellate Case: 24-5020 Document: 010111062551 Date Filed: 06/10/2024 Page: 3

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Joel M. Carson III Circuit Judge