United States v. Ralphael Caldwell

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: June 4, 2026
• Docket: 25-12616
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-12616 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 Page: 1 of 2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12616 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

RALPHAEL ROY CALDWELL, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:24-cr-00090-TKW-1 ____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Ralphael Roy Caldwell appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. 18 U.S.C. USCA11 Case: 25-12616 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12616

§ 922(g)(1). He argues that section 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional un- der the Second Amendment and exceeds Congress’s authority un- der the Commerce Clause. We affirm. Our precedents control this appeal and foreclose Caldwell’s arguments. We have repeatedly rejected facial challenges to the constitutionality of section 922(g) under the Commerce Clause. United States v. Edwards, 142 F.4th 1270, 1285 (11th Cir. 2025); see also United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708, 715 (11th Cir. 2010) (hold- ing that section 922(g)(1) “is not an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause”) (internal quota- tions omitted). We have also rejected as-applied challenges and held that the required “minimal nexus” to interstate commerce ex- ists where the government proved that the firearm was manufac- tured out of state and necessarily traveled in interstate commerce. Edwards, 142 F.4th at 1285. And in United States v. Dubois, we held that New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), did not abrogate our holding in United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2010), that section 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment. 94 F.4th 1284, 1291-93 (11th Cir. 2024). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further consideration in the light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). Dubois v. United States, 145 S. Ct. 1041, 1042 (2025). On remand, we rein- stated our earlier opinion and rejected the argument that Bruen and Rahimi abrogated our holding in Rozier. Dubois, 139 F.4th at 893-94. We AFFIRM Caldwell’s conviction.