USCA11 Case: 23-11604    Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 03/12/2024   Page: 1 of 2




                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11604
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       LORENZO GAROD PIERRE,


                                                  Defendant-Appellant.


                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-20321-JEM-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11604      Document: 28-1       Date Filed: 03/12/2024     Page: 2 of 2




       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-11604


       Before NEWSOM, ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Lorenzo Pierre appeals his conviction for possession of a
       firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 

(g)(1),
       arguing that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to his case, in
       light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 

 (2022), because it violates the Second Amendment and is in-
       consistent with this nation’s tradition of firearms regulations.
               In United States v. DuBois, No. 22-10829, manuscript op. at 9-
       15 (11th Cir. 2024), we explicitly rejected this argument and ruled
       that our prior precedent in United States v. Rozier, 

 (11th
       Cir. 2010), in which we upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1),
       remains good law. See Smith v. GTE Corp., 

, 1300 n.8
       (11th Cir. 2001) (“Under the well-established prior panel precedent
       rule of this Circuit, the holding of the first panel to address an issue
       is the law of this Circuit, thereby binding all subsequent panels un-
       less and until the first panel’s holding is overruled by the Court sit-
       ting en banc or by the Supreme Court.” (citing Cargill v. Turpin, 

 (11th Cir. 1997))). As such, Pierre’s argument fails,
       and his conviction is AFFIRMED.