USCA11 Case: 24-10871 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2025 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-10871 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JEFFREY MICHEL,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cr-20363-KMM-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-10871 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-10871

Before JORDAN, LUCK, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Michel appeals his conviction for possession of a fire- arm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He con- tends § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied to his con- duct. The Government, in turn, has moved for summary affir- mance. After review,1 we grant the Government’s motion for sum- mary affirmance and affirm.

Our binding precedent holds that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is con- stitutional both under the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment. In United States v. McAllister, we held “§ 922(g)(1) is not an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause,” explaining the statute’s requirement of a con- nection to interstate commerce was sufficient to satisfy the “mini- mal nexus” requirement of the Commerce Clause. 77 F.3d 387, 389-91 (11th Cir. 1996). The Government proves a “minimal nexus” to interstate commerce if it demonstrates—as Michel con- cedes it did here—the firearm was manufactured outside of the state where the offense took place and, thus, necessarily traveled in interstate commerce. United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708, 715-16 (11th Cir. 2010). And in United States v. Dubois, __ F.4th__, 2025

1 We review the constitutionality of a statute de novo. United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708, 715 (11th Cir. 2010).

USCA11 Case: 24-10871 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2025 Page: 3 of 3

24-10871 Opinion of the Court 3 WL 1553843 at *3 (11th Cir. June 2, 2025), we reaffirmed our earlier precedent in United State v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768, 771 (11th Cir. 2010), that “statutes disqualifying felons from possessing a firearm under any and all circumstances do not offend the Second Amend- ment.” Dubois, 2025 WL 1553843 at *3, Rozier, 598 F.3d at 771.

Michel concedes his Commerce Clause arguments are fore- closed by this Court’s binding precedent. And our binding prece- dents in Dubois and Rozier similarly foreclose his Second Amend- ment arguments. United States v. White, 837 F.3d 1225, 1228 (11th Cir. 2016) (stating the prior panel precedent rule requires us to fol- low a prior binding precedent unless and until it is overruled by the Supreme Court or by this Court sitting en banc).

Because the Government is clearly correct as a matter of law that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment both facially and as applied to Michel, we GRANT its motion for summary affirmance. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969) 2 (explain- ing summary disposition is appropriate where “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”).

AFFIRMED.

2 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Cir- cuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981.