United States v. Riddle

Appellate Case: 25-7067 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 7, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 25-7067 (D.C. No. 6:25-CR-00032-JFH-1) JOSEPH CHARLES RIDDLE, (E.D. Okla.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before McHUGH, BALDOCK, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Joseph Charles Riddle was indicted on one count of being a felon in possession of ammunition and a second count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, both in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Mr. Riddle moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied

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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 25-7067 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2026 Page: 2 to him. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, so Mr. Riddle pleaded guilty, reserving his constitutional arguments for appeal. The district court sentenced him to months in prison followed by three years of supervised release.

Mr. Riddle now renews his constitutional challenge, although he concedes our precedent forecloses his arguments. See Aplt. Br. at 4, 6, 8. In United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1047 (10th Cir. 2009), we held that § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment. We have since upheld McCane, even after Bruen and Rahimi. See Vincent v. Bondi, 127 F.4th 1263, 1265-66 (10th Cir. 2025), cert. denied (U.S. Mar. 2, 2026) (No. 24-1155). As Mr. Riddle recognizes, see Aplt. Br. at 4, it does not matter whether his predicate felony was for a violent or nonviolent offense. See Vincent, 127 F.4th at 1266 (“McCane . . . upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) for all individuals convicted of felonies,” including “nonviolent offenders”); United States v. Warner, 131 F.4th 1137, 1148 (10th Cir. 2025) (“[E]ven after Rahimi, § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to non-violent felons.”).

Mr. Riddle insists Vincent was “wrongly decided,” and he points out the plaintiff in that case sought certiorari review by the Supreme Court. Aplt. Br. at 4.

But, as explained above, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Vincent on March 2, 2026. Therefore, because Vincent and McCane remain binding precedent, we must affirm the district court’s judgment. See United States v. Lira-Ramirez, 951 F.3d

2 Appellate Case: 25-7067 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2026 Page: 3

1258, 1260 (10th Cir. 2020) (“We must generally follow our precedents absent en banc consideration.”).

Entered for the Court

Veronica S. Rossman Circuit Judge