Appellate Case: 24-1051 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 04/30/2025 Page: 1

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 30, 2025

_________________________________

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

No. 24-1051 v. (D.C. No. 1:17-CR-00358-CMA-1)

(D. Colo.) JOSHUA OMAR GARCIA,

Defendant - Appellant.

_________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

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

_________________________________

Defendant, Joshua Omar Garcia, pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In relevant part, § 922(g)(1) makes it unlawful for a convicted felon to “possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm.” As permitted by Defendant’s plea agreement, Defendant appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss his felon-in-possession charge as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause. He appeals for preservation purposes

*

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 24-1051 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 04/30/2025 Page: 2 only, conceding our precedents foreclose his arguments. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review Defendant’s appeal de novo. See United States v. Dorris, 236 F.3d 582, 584 (10th Cir. 2000) (explaining we review challenges to the constitutionality of a statute de novo).

Defendant first argues we must vacate his § 922(g) conviction because it violates the Second Amendment, citing New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). Defendant raises both a facial and as-applied challenge. We agree with Defendant that our precedents foreclose his argument. In United States v. McCane, we held § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment. 573 F.3d 1037, 1047 (10th Cir. 2009). In addition, McCane “upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) without drawing constitutional distinctions based on the type of felony involved.” Vincent v. Bondi, 127 F.4th 1263, 1266 (10th Cir. 2025). McCane remains binding after Bruen and Rahimi, so Defendant’s Second Amendment challenge fails. See id.

Defendant also argues § 922(g) violates the Commerce Clause, citing United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). Our precedents yet again foreclose Defendant’s argument. We have affirmed the constitutionality of § 922(g) under the Commerce Clause on numerous occasions. See, e.g., United States v. Bolton, 68 F.3d 396, 400 (10th Cir. 1995) (“Section 922(g)'s requirement that the firearm have been, at some time, in interstate commerce is sufficient to establish its constitutionality under the Commerce Clause”); Dorris, 236 F.3d at 584–86 (rejecting a challenge to § 922(g)(1) based not only on Lopez but also United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) and Jones v. United

2 Appellate Case: 24-1051 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 04/30/2025 Page: 3 States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000)); United States v. Urbano, 563 F.3d 1150, 1154 (10th Cir. 2009) (reiterating, “if a firearm has traveled across state lines, the minimal nexus with interstate commerce is met and the statute can be constitutionally applied”).

***

Bound by precedent, we affirm Defendant’s § 922(g) conviction.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge

3