United States v. Talbot

Opinion

Appellate Case: 23-8025 Document: 62 Date Filed: 02/13/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 13, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 23-8025 (D.C. No. 2:22-CR-00116-SWS-1) LANCE JAMES TALBOT, (D. Wyo.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before MORITZ, BALDOCK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

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.

This case is submitted to us on remand from the United States Supreme Court.

Lance James Talbot was charged with being a felon unlawfully in possession of

ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He moved to dismiss the charge,

arguing § 922(g) was unconstitutional, both facially and as applied, under New York

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 23-8025 Document: 62 Date Filed: 02/13/2025 Page: 2

State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). After the district court denied

Talbot’s motion, he entered a conditional plea of guilty, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2),

specifically preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. On

appeal to this court, Talbot conceded his claims of error were foreclosed by this

court’s then-recent decision in Vincent v. Garland (“Vincent I”), 80 F.4th 1197, 1202

(10th Cir. 2023), but raised the claim for preservation purposes “pending further

developments within the Tenth Circuit or at the Supreme Court.” United States v.

Talbot, No. 23-8025, 2024 WL 2013910, at *1 (10th Cir. May 7, 2024). This court

acknowledged Talbot “preserved the issue in the hope of further review.” Id.

(quotation omitted). Nevertheless, because his claim of error was foreclosed by

Vincent I, this court affirmed the district court’s judgment. Id.

Thereafter, the Supreme Court vacated Vincent I and remanded the matter for

reconsideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). Vincent v.

Garland (“Vincent II”), 144 S. Ct. 2708, 2708-09 (2024) (mem.). The Court likewise

vacated this court’s decision in Talbot’s appeal and remanded for reconsideration in

light of Rahimi. Talbot v. United States, 24-5258, 2024 WL 4654945, at *1 (Nov. 4,

2024) (mem.). On February 11, 2025, this court issued a revised opinion on remand.

Vincent v. Bondi (“Vincent III”), No. 21-4121, 2025 WL 453999, at *1-2 (10th Cir.

Feb. 11, 2025). Vincent III “readopt[ed]” Vincent I and affirmed that § 922(g)(1) is

constitutional whether or not the underlying felony leading to disenfranchisement is

violent. Id. at *2.

2 Appellate Case: 23-8025 Document: 62 Date Filed: 02/13/2025 Page: 3

Given all this, this court stands in the same position as when it previously

resolved Talbot’s appeal: the decision in Vincent III forecloses Talbot’s facial and as-

applied challenges to § 922(g). Thus, the district court’s judgment must be affirmed.

Nevertheless, we again acknowledge Talbot has preserved these issues in the hope of

further developments in either this court or the Supreme Court.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming

is hereby AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge