United States v. Thomas White, III

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: December 23, 2025
• Docket: 25-11985
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-11985 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2025 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11985 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

THOMAS JAMES WHITE, III, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 7:24-cr-00326-AMM-GMB-1 ____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ROSENBAUM and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-11985 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-11985

Thomas James White, III, appeals his conviction for know- ingly possessing a firearm as a felon. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He ar- gues that section 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied to him. The government moves for summary affirmance. We grant the government’s mo- tion and affirm. Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is- sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a mat- ter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the out- come of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the ap- peal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The government is clearly right as a matter of law. Id. at 1162. Our precedents control this appeal and foreclose White’s ar- guments. 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. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated our decision in Dubois, 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 reinstated our earlier opinion and rejected the ar- guments that White now raises on appeal—that Bruen and Rahimi USCA11 Case: 25-11985 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2025 Page: 3 of 3

25-11985 Opinion of the Court 3

abrogated our holding in Rozier. United States v. Dubois, 139 F.4th 887, 893-94 (11th Cir. 2025). In Rozier, we held that “statutes dis- qualifying felons from possessing a firearm under any and all cir- cumstances 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 convic- tion). We GRANT the motion for summary affirmance and AFFIRM White’s conviction.