USCA11 Case: 23-11604 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 06/20/2025 Page: 1 of 9

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-11604 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF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: 51-1 Date Filed: 06/20/2025 Page: 2 of 9

PER CURIAM: We previously affirmed Lorenzo Pierre’s conviction for be- ing a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), reject- ing his argument that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to his case in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). United States v. Pierre, No. 23-11604, 2024 WL 1070655 (“Pierre I”), at *1 (11th Cir. Mar. 12, 2024) (unpublished), vacated, 145 S. Ct. 412 (2024) (mem.) (“Pierre II”). In doing so, we concluded that Pierre’s argument was foreclosed by United States v. Dubois, 94 F.4th 1284 (11th Cir. 2024) (“Dubois I”), vacated, 145 S. Ct. 1041 (2025), which held that our prior precedent in United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2010) (upholding the constitutional- ity of § 922(g)(1) in all circumstances) “remain[ed] good law.”

Pierre I, 2024 WL 1070655, at *1.

In October 2024, the Supreme Court granted Pierre’s peti- tion for a writ of certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). Pierre II, 145 S. Ct. at 412. On remand, we reached the same conclusion as we had previously reached, United States v. Pierre, 2024 WL 5055533, at *1–4 (11th Cir. Dec. 10, 2024) (unpublished) (“Pierre III”), vacated, 2025 WL 415200 (11th Cir. Feb.

3, 2025) (unpublished order) (“Pierre IV”), but we vacated our deci- sion after the Supreme Court remanded Dubois I for further USCA11 Case: 23-11604 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 06/20/2025 Page: 3 of 9

23-11604 Opinion of the Court 3 proceedings, Pierre IV, 2025 WL 415200, at *1; see also Dubois, S. Ct. at 1041. In June 2025, this Court issued an opinion on remand in Dubois, again concluding that Rozier remains binding, and reinstating Dubois I. United States v. Dubois, __F.4th __, 2025 WL 1553843, at *1, *5–6 (11th Cir. 2025) (“Dubois II”). In light of these developments, and, after careful consideration of the parties’ supplemental briefs, we again affirm Pierre’s conviction.

In Rozier, a defendant challenged his conviction under § 922(g)(1) as unconstitutional under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). 598 F.3d at 770–71. We rejected Rozier’s chal- lenge, explaining that the “language [of Heller] suggest[ed] that stat- utes disqualifying felons from possessing a firearm under any and all circumstances do not offend the Second Amendment.” Id. at (citing Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27). We explained: [S]tatutory restrictions of firearm possession, such as § 922(g)(1), are a constitutional avenue to restrict the Second Amendment right of certain classes of peo- ple. Rozier, by virtue of his felony conviction, falls within such a class. Therefore, the fact that Rozier may have possessed the handgun for purposes of self- defense (in his home), is irrelevant.

Id. 1

2 We had “never actually applied the second, means-end-scrutiny step” of this now-overruled two-step test. Dubois I, 94 F.4th at 1292 (citing Jimenez-Shilon, F.4th at 1052–53 (Newsom, J., concurring)).

USCA11 Case: 23-11604 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 06/20/2025 Page: 5 of 9

23-11604 Opinion of the Court 5 protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is con- sistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of fire- arm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

Bruen, 597 U.S. at 24 (quoting Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal., 366 U.S. 36, 50 n.10 (1961)).

After Bruen, we rejected a defendant’s facial and as-applied challenges to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) in Dubois I, a case where the defendant argued that Bruen abrogated Rozier. 94 F.4th at 1291-93. After summarizing Heller, Bruen, and Rozier, we ex- plained that the Supreme Court’s opinion in Bruen “left no doubt that it viewed its decision as a faithful application of Heller, not a departure from it.” Id. at 1292. We also noted that “Bruen, like Heller, [had] repeatedly described the [Second Amendment] right as extending only to ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens.’” Id. (quot- ing Bruen, 597 U.S. at 26). We then explained: Bruen did not abrogate Rozier. Because the Supreme Court made it clear in Heller that its holding did not cast doubt on felon-in-possession prohibitions, and because the Court made it clear in Bruen that its hold- ing was in keeping with Heller, Bruen could not have clearly abrogated [Rozier]. Indeed, the Bruen majority did not mention felons or section 922(g)(1). Dubois argues that we may depart from Rozier because Bruen abrogated all prior precedent relying on the two-step analysis. But Rozier upheld section 922(g)(1) on the USCA11 Case: 23-11604 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 06/20/2025 Page: 6 of 9

Because Rozier binds us, Dubois’s challenge based on the Second Amendment necessarily fails.

Id. at 1293 (alterations adopted, internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 3 In Rahimi, decided after Dubois I and Pierre’s initial appeal, the Supreme Court held that § 922(g)(8)—which prohibits firearm possession by individuals subject to a domestic violence restraining order—was constitutional because the provision comported with the principles underlying the Second Amendment. 602 U.S. at 692– 700. In reaching that conclusion, the Supreme Court explained that “some courts [had] misunderstood the methodology” of its “recent Second Amendment cases.” Id. at 691. It clarified that Bruen does

3As explained above, shortly after we decided Dubois I, we decided Pierre’s in- itial appeal, concluding that his as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) was foreclosed because we had determined, in Dubois I, that Rozier was still binding precedent. Pierre I, 2024 WL 1070655, at *1.

USCA11 Case: 23-11604 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 06/20/2025 Page: 7 of 9

23-11604 Opinion of the Court 7 not require a regulation to have existed at the founding in an iden- tical form: instead, “[t]he law must comport with the principles un- derlying the Second Amendment, but it need not be a ‘dead ringer’ or a ‘historical twin.’” Id. at 692 (quoting Bruen, 597 U.S. at 30).

The Supreme Court also reiterated that prohibitions on felons’ pos- session of firearms are “presumptively lawful.” Id. at 699 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 626–27). It added that, in Heller, it had “recog- nized that the right [secured by the Second Amendment] was never thought to sweep indiscriminately.” Id. at 691. It also held that § 922(g)(8) was constitutional as applied to Rahimi because the re- straining order to which he was subject included a finding that he posed “a credible threat to the physical safety” of another, and the government provided “ample evidence” that the Second Amend- ment permitted “the disarmament of individuals who pose a cred- ible threat to the physical safety of others.” Id. at 693–701. The Court added that the restriction imposed on Rahimi’s rights by § 922(g)(8) was temporary because it applied only while he was subject to a restraining order. Id. at 699.

In light of Rahimi, the Supreme Court remanded Dubois for further proceedings. 145 S. Ct. 1041. After supplemental briefing, we affirmed Dubois’s convictions on remand and reinstated Du- bois I. Dubois II, 2025 WL 1553843, at *1, *5–6. We explained that Bruen did not abrogate Rozier because Bruen was consistent with Heller, which was the precedent Rozier relied on to reach the con- clusion that § 922(g)(1) was constitutional. Id. at *5. We next con- cluded that “Rahimi also did not abrogate Rozier,” and, in fact, Rahimi “reinforced—[rather than] undermined—Rozier” because USCA11 Case: 23-11604 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 06/20/2025 Page: 8 of 9

We are bound to apply Dubois II, which concluded that Rahimi, like Bruen, did not overrule or abrogate our decision in Rozier.4 Dubois II, 2025 WL 1553843, at *5–6. In turn, we are also bound to apply Rozier. Id. Rozier forecloses Pierre’s Second Amendment challenge because Pierre, “by virtue of his felony con- viction, falls within such a class” of people permissibly restricted from possessing firearms. Rozier, 598 F.3d at 771. We thus cannot

4 Other circuits have reached different results on whether challenges to § 922(g)(1) are foreclosed because of pre-Bruen caselaw. See, e.g., United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 465 (5th Cir. 2024) (“Bruen constitutes . . . a change [in law that] render[s] our prior precedent obsolete.” (internal citation and quota- tion omitted)), petition for cert. filed (No. 24-6625) (Feb. 2025); Range v. Att’y Gen, 69 F.4th 96, 106 (3d Cir. 2023) (en banc) (“[T]he Government’s contention that Bruen does not meaningfully affect this Court’s precedent, is mis- taken . . . .” (internal citation and quotation omitted)), vacated sub nom. Garland v. Range, 144 S. Ct. 2706 (2024) (mem.), opinion reached on remand at Range v. Att’y Gen., 124 F.4th 218 (3d Cir. 2024) (en banc). Ultimately, it is the binding precedent of this Court and the Supreme Court which binds us, not the prec- edent of other circuits. We held in Rozier that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional in all applications and the Supreme Court has not abrogated that precedent, Du- bois II, 2025 WL 1553843, at *4–5, so we must apply it, see Walker v. Mortham, 158 F.3d 1177, 1188 (11th Cir. 1998) (“[A] decision of a prior panel cannot be overturned by a later panel.” (emphasis added)).

USCA11 Case: 23-11604 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 06/20/2025 Page: 9 of 9

23-11604 Opinion of the Court 9 entertain Pierre’s request for an individualized determination of whether he should possess that right.

At bottom, “[w]e require clearer instruction from the Su- preme Court before we may reconsider the constitutionality of sec- tion 922(g)(1).” Dubois I, 94 F.4th at 1293; Dubois II, 2025 WL 1553843, at *5. For these reasons, we affirm Pierre’s conviction.

AFFIRMED.