United States v. Perry Wims

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-13941

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PERRY IVORY WIMS, Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:23-cr-00113-MSS-SPF-1

____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Perry Ivory Wims appeals his conviction for knowingly possessing a firearm as a felon. 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e). He

2

2 Opinion of the Court 24-13941

argues that section 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied to him. Based on our recent decision in United States v. Dubois, 139 F.4th 887 (11th Cir. 2025), we affirm.

We review the constitutionality of a statute de novo. Dubois, 139 F.4th at 890. In United States v. Dubois, 94 F.4th 1284, 1291–93 (11th Cir. 2024), we held that New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), did not abrogate our holding in United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768, 770–71 (11th Cir. 2010), that section 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment. While Wims’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated our decision in Dubois, and remanded for further consideration in the light of United States v. Rahimi, 620 U.S. 680 (2024). Dubois v. United States, 145 S. Ct. 1041, 1042 (2025). On remand, we rejected the argument Wims now raises on appeal—that Rahimi abrogated our holding in Rozier. Dubois, 139 F.4th at 893–94. In Rozier, we held that “statutes disqualifying felons from possessing a firearm under any and all circumstances do not offend the Second Amendment.” Rozier, 598 F.3d at 770–72 (accepting that Rozier “possessed the handgun for self-defense” but concluding that “[t]he circumstances surrounding Rozier’s possession . . . are irrelevant” due to his felony conviction).

We AFFIRM Wims’s conviction.