United States v. Trevin Tywon Davis

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: December 9, 2025
• Docket: 24-14099
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-14099 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/09/2025 Page: 1 of 2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-14099 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

TREVIN TYWON DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cr-00008-LAG-TQL-1 ____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ABUDU and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Trevin Tywon Davis appeals his conviction for knowingly possessing a firearm as a felon. 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(8), USCA11 Case: 24-14099 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/09/2025 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 24-14099

924(e). He argues that section 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied to him. Based on our decision in United States v. Dubois, 139 F.4th 887 (11th Cir. 2025), we affirm. Our precedents control this appeal and foreclose Davis’s ar- gument. 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 Davis’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated our deci- sion 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 reinstated our earlier opinion and rejected the argument Davis now raises on ap- peal—that Bruen abrogated our holding in Rozier. Dubois, 139 F.4th at 893 (“As we decided in our earlier opinion, Bruen did not abro- gate Rozier.”). 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 (accept- ing that Rozier “possessed the handgun for self-defense” but con- cluding that “[t]he circumstances surrounding Rozier’s posses- sion . . . are irrelevant” due to his felony conviction). We AFFIRM Davis’s conviction.