Appellate Case: 22-1412 Document: 90-1 Date Filed: 04/10/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 10, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 22-1412 v. (D.C. No. 1:22-CR-00149-RM-1) (D. Colo.) MAURICE FARRIS,

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before MATHESON and EID, Circuit Judges.** 1 _________________________________

On May 4, 2022, a federal grand jury indicted Defendant Maurice Farris on a

single count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of § 922(g)(1).

Farris moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision in

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. ** 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. 1 The Honorable Mary Beck Briscoe participated in this appeal but not in this Order and Judgment. The practice of this court permits the remaining two panel judges, if in agreement, to act as a quorum in resolving the appeal. See United States v. Holcomb, 853 F.3d 1098, 1099 n.** (10th Cir. 2017) (first citing 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2012); then citing United States v. Wiles, 106 F.3d 1516, 1516, at n* (10th Cir. 1997)). Appellate Case: 22-1412 Document: 90-1 Date Filed: 04/10/2025 Page: 2

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022),

“marked a dramatic shift in Second Amendment law” and effectively overruled

United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037 (10th Cir. 2009), in which we held that

§ 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment.

After the district court denied Farris’s motion to dismiss, Farris pleaded guilty

to the single charge alleged in the indictment. On November 18, 2022, the district

court sentenced Farris to a term of imprisonment of thirty-seven months, to be

followed by a three-year term of supervised release. The district court entered

judgment that same day. Farris thereafter filed a timely notice of appeal.

On appeal, Farris continued to argue that Bruen rendered § 922(g)(1)

unconstitutional. However, after Farris filed his appeal a panel of this court addressed

and rejected the very same argument. See Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1197, 1202

(10th Cir. 2023) (concluding that Bruen did not abrogate McCane, which rejected

Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges to § 922(g)(1)). As a result,

Farris agreed that his constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1) was foreclosed by

Vincent and McCane, and he acquiesced to summary affirmance of the district court’s

judgment. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirmed the judgment

of the district court. United States v. Farris, 2024 WL 159939, at *2 (10th Cir.

Jan. 16, 2024).

On July 2, 2024, the Supreme Court vacated our judgment in Vincent and

remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680

(2024). See Vincent v. Garland, 144 S. Ct. 2708 (2024) (mem.). On October 7, 2024,

2 Appellate Case: 22-1412 Document: 90-1 Date Filed: 04/10/2025 Page: 3

the Supreme Court likewise vacated our judgment in this case and remanded for

further consideration in light of Rahimi. Farris v. United States, 145 S. Ct. 122

(2024) (mem.). On remand in Vincent, we concluded that McCane remains binding

after Rahimi, and we readopted our prior opinion. Vincent v. Bondi, 127 F.4th 1263, 1266 (10th Cir. 2025) (“Vincent II”).

Given Vincent II’s holding that McCane remains binding, Farris’s

constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1) continues to be foreclosed by our precedent.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Per Curiam

3