Appellate Case: 24-1039 Document: 010111065191 Date Filed: 06/14/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 14, 2024 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court MICHAEL LAWRENCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 24-1039 (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-02199-DDD-KAS) MERRICK GARLAND, Attorney General (D. Colo.) of the United States; STEVEN DETTELBACH, Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; PHIL WEISER, Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ In 2010 Michael Lawrence was convicted of three nonviolent felonies in Colorado state court: attempting to influence a public servant, forging an instrument that affects a legal right, and offering a false instrument for recording. In 2023

* 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 24-1039 Document: 010111065191 Date Filed: 06/14/2024 Page: 2

Mr. Lawrence attempted to purchase a gun at a sporting goods store in Colorado; but, after learning of his felony convictions, the store declined to sell him the gun.

Mr. Lawrence then filed suit against United States Attorney General Merrick Garland; the Director of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Steven Dettelbach; and Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser. He asserted that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-12-108 are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decision in NY State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), as applied to persons like him whose felony convictions were for nonviolent offenses. As relief, he sought a declaration to that effect, an injunction prohibiting the defendants from enforcing the two statutes against him, and attorney fees. He later filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.

The federal defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that Mr. Lawrence’s constitutional challenges were foreclosed by Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1197, 1202 (10th Cir. 2023), which held that Bruen did not abrogate United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1047 (10th Cir. 2009), where this court upheld § 922(g)(1)’s constitutionality under the Second Amendment. The Colorado Attorney General separately moved to dismiss on the ground that the Eleventh Amendment prohibited the federal-court suit against him when he was not charged with the enforcement of the Colorado law at issue. The district court granted both motions to dismiss, and denied Mr. Lawrence’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Mr. Lawrence timely appealed, but his briefs on appeal challenge only the

Page 2 Appellate Case: 24-1039 Document: 010111065191 Date Filed: 06/14/2024 Page: 3

dismissal of the federal defendants and only the ruling with respect to § 922(g)(1).

He has waived any challenge to the other rulings by the district court. See Cisneros v. Aragon, 485 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 2007) (challenge waived when opening brief on appeal contains no substantive arguments supporting the challenge).

We review de novo an order granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, accepting “a complaint’s well-pleaded allegations as true, viewing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and liberally construe the pleadings.” Young v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 94 F.4th 1242, 1249 (10th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, examining the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. See Citizens United v. Gessler, 773 F.3d 200, 209 (10th Cir. 2014).

We affirm the challenged dismissal by the district court. Mr. Lawrence acknowledges that the very arguments he makes in this case were rejected by this Court in Vincent. The thrust of his brief on appeal amounts to no more than that Vincent was wrongly decided. But this panel is bound by our circuit’s precedent. See United States v. Brooks, 751 F.3d 1204, 1209 (10th Cir. 2014).

Page 3 Appellate Case: 24-1039 Document: 010111065191 Date Filed: 06/14/2024 Page: 4

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. We DENY as moot Mr. Lawrence’s motion to expedite this appeal.

Entered for the Court

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge

Page 4