United States v. Mitchell

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: July 23, 2025
• Docket: 24-8029
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-8029 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 07/23/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 23, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 24-8029 (D.C. No. 2:23-CR-00151-SWS-1) ERIC LAMARIO MITCHELL, (D. Wyo.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before BACHARACH, CARSON, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Eric Lamario Mitchell entered a conditional plea of guilty to one count of

being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He

received a 60-month prison sentence to be followed by three years of supervised

release. Mr. Mitchell appeals his conviction, contending the district court should

have dismissed the indictment on the ground that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second

Amendment. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

* 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 24-8029 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 07/23/2025 Page: 2

In November 2023, a federal grand jury charged Mr. Mitchell with two counts

of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He moved to dismiss the charges,

contending that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment in

light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). He

acknowledged, however, that this court had already rejected that argument. See

Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1197, 1201-02 (10th Cir. 2023) (holding that Bruen did

not abrogate the Tenth Circuit’s previous case law upholding the constitutionality of

§ 922(g)(1)).

The parties then entered a plea agreement in which Mr. Mitchell agreed to

conditionally plead guilty to one of the counts and reserved his right to appeal based

on the argument he presented in his motion to dismiss. At the change-of-plea

hearing, the district court denied Mr. Mitchell’s motion to dismiss and accepted his

conditional plea of guilty. The district court thereafter sentenced Mr. Mitchell to 60

months in prison and three years of supervised release. This appeal followed.

Mr. Mitchell notes in his opening brief that in Vincent, the Supreme Court

granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded to the Tenth Circuit to

consider the defendant’s arguments in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680

(2024). See Vincent v. Garland, 144 S. Ct. 2708 (2024). Rahimi involved a

constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(8), which prohibits individuals subject to a

domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm. 602 U.S. at 684.

After the parties in this case completed briefing, this court “freshly

considered” the argument that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional, and concluded “that

2 Appellate Case: 24-8029 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 07/23/2025 Page: 3

Rahimi doesn’t undermine the panel’s earlier reasoning or result.” Vincent v. Bondi,

127 F.4th 1263, 1264 (10th Cir. 2025). The court so held in part because “Rahimi

again recognized the presumptive lawfulness of . . . longstanding prohibitions, like

those on the possession of firearms by felons.” Id. at 1265 (internal quotation marks

omitted).

Even before this court reaffirmed Vincent, Mr. Mitchell conceded that he

“would not presently argue against summary affirmance of the lower court’s decision

denying his motion to dismiss, or its judgment and sentence in his case.” Aplt.

Opening Br. at 10. Instead, he only seeks to preserve his arguments and “may further

present them to this Court or a higher court in the future.” Id. In light of Vincent and

Mr. Mitchell’s concession, we agree that summary affirmance is appropriate.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Entered for the Court

Joel M. Carson III Circuit Judge