USCA11 Case: 24-10142    Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 06/05/2024   Page: 1 of 3




                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 24-10142
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       THELONIOUS WAYNE KIRBY,


                                                  Defendant- Appellant.


                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 3:22-cr-00026-TJC-LLL-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 24-10142         Document: 26-1          Date Filed: 06/05/2024          Page: 2 of 3




       2                          Opinion of the Court                         24-10142


       Before NEWSOM, ABUDU, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Thelonious Kirby appeals his conviction for being a con-
       victed felon in possession of a firearm. He argues that 

(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment and the Commerce
       Clause. The government has moved for summary affirmance, ar-
       guing that, under our binding precedent, § 922(g)(1) is constitu-
       tional. After thorough review, we grant the government’s motion
       for summary affirmance.
              We review a statute’s constitutionality de novo. United States
       v. Rozier, 

 (11th Cir. 2010). Summary disposition
       is appropriate if “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as
       a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to
       the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 

, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 1 Under our prior panel precedent rule,
       we are bound by our prior published decisions that have not been
       overruled by the Supreme Court or ourselves sitting en banc.
       United States v. Romo-Villalobos, 

 (11th Cir. 2012).
              The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
       provides that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the se-
       curity of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,


       1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 

 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we

       adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions issued before October
       1, 1981.
USCA11 Case: 24-10142      Document: 26-1       Date Filed: 06/05/2024     Page: 3 of 3




       24-10142                Opinion of the Court                          3

       shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II. Under federal law,
       a person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by more
       than one year’s imprisonment may not possess a firearm or ammu-
       nition that has moved through interstate or foreign commerce.
       

(g)(1). We have held that § 922(g)(1)’s prohibition
       on felon disarmament does not violate the Second Amendment
       and that § 922(g)(1) is a valid use of the congressional Commerce
       Clause power. United States v. McAllister, 

, 389–90 (11th
       Cir. 1996); Rozier, 598 F.3d at 770–71.
               Kirby’s argument -- that 

(g)(1) violates the
       Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause -- is foreclosed by
       our binding precedents. See McAllister, 77 F.3d at 389–90; Rozier,
       598 F.3d at 770–71. Moreover, we recently held that Rozier was not
       abrogated by the Supreme Court’s decision in N.Y. State Rifle and
       Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 

 (2022). See United States v. Du-
       bois, 

 (11th Cir. 2024). And we are bound by all
       of our prior published decisions because they have not been over-
       ruled by the Supreme Court or ourselves sitting en banc. Romo-Vil-
       lalobos, 

. Accordingly, we grant the government’s
       motion for summary disposition, since it is “clearly right as a mat-
       ter of law” that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional. See Groendyke Transp.,
       406 F.2d at 1162.
              AFFIRMED.