United States v. Nunamaker

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: March 16, 2026
• Docket: 25-5112
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-5112 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 03/16/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 16, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 25-5112 v. (D.C. No. 4:24-CR-00278-GKF-1) (N.D. Okla.) JACKEY WAYNE NUNAMAKER,

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before MORITZ, BALDOCK, and EID, Circuit Judges. ** _________________________________

After the district court rejected his Second Amendment attack on the

constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) as applied to his prior felony convictions, all

of which he says may be considered non-violent, Defendant Jackey Wayne Nunamaker

entered a conditional plea of guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a

firearm. The district court sentenced Defendant to thirty-months’ imprisonment and

he appealed his conviction. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. §1291.

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 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. Appellate Case: 25-5112 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 03/16/2026 Page: 2

In his opening brief, Defendant acknowledges that Tenth Circuit precedent

presently precludes his attack on § 922(g)(1)’s constitutionality such that the present

appeal is “for preservation purposes and potential further review.” Op. Br. at 5.

Defendant is correct that our decision in Vincent v. Bondi, 127 F.4th 1263 (10th Cir.

2025), cert. denied 2026 WL 568283 (March 2, 2026), upheld the constitutionality of

§ 922(g)(1) over a Second Amendment objection as to any individual convicted of a

prior felony, including a non-violent felony offender. That opinion sets forth the

rationale for the Court’s holding and we need not repeat that rationale here. See also

United States v. Warner, 131 F.4th 1137 (10th Cir. 2025) (despite “the shifting Second

Amendment landscape,” Vincent v. Bondi governs defendant’s challenge to the

constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to non-violent felony offenders).

Because controlling Tenth Circuit precedent compels this panel to uphold the

district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, the judgment

of the district court is affirmed. See United States v. White, 782 F.3d 1118, 1126–27

(10th Cir. 2015) (one Tenth Circuit panel cannot overrule the judgment of a prior Tenth

Circuit panel absent a Tenth Circuit en banc or Supreme Court decision contrary to the

prior panel’s analysis).

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge