USCA11 Case: 23-10227 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 07/07/2025 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-10227 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KEVIN DEANE JONES, a.k.a. Kevin Jones,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:22-cr-00021-WWB-LHP-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-10227 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 07/07/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 23-10227

Before JORDAN, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM: In our prior opinion in this case—a copy of which is at- tached—we upheld Kevin Jones’ convictions and sentences (pursu- ant to guilty pleas) under 18 U.S.C. § 175(b) (possession of a biolog- ical agent and delivery system) and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (possession of a firearm by a convicted felon). See United States v. Jones, 2024 WL 1554865 (11th Cir. April 10, 2024) (Jones I). The Supreme Court subsequently granted Mr. Jones’ petition for certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded for reconsideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). See United States v. Jones, 145 S.Ct. 432 (2024) (Jones II).

As relevant for the remand, we previously rejected Mr. Jones’ Second Amendment challenge to his § 922(g)(1) conviction, a chal- lenge which was based on New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). We did so because we were bound by the earlier panel decision in United States v. Dubois, 94 F. 4th 1284 (11th Cir. 2024) (Dubois I), which ruled that Bruen did not abrogate Elev- enth Circuit precedent (e.g., United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2010)) holding that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional under the Second Amendment.

Following the remand in this case, the Supreme Court va- cated our decision in Dubois I—the case we had relied on in affirm- ing Mr. Jones’ § 922(g)(1) conviction—and remanded that case for reconsideration in light of Rahimi. See Dubois v. United States, 145 USCA11 Case: 23-10227 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 07/07/2025 Page: 3 of 3

23-10227 Opinion of the Court 3 S.Ct. 1041 (2025) (Dubois II). The Dubois panel on remand again rejected the Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1), holding that Rahimi, like Bruen, “did not abrogate our holding in Rozier that [§] 922(g)(1) is constitutional under the Second Amendment.”

United States v. Dubois, ___ F. 4th ___, 2025 WL 1553843, at *1 (11th Cir. June 2, 2025) (Dubois III).

We again affirm Mr. Jones’ felon-in-possession conviction.

We are bound by Dubois III, which forecloses Mr. Jones’ Second Amendment argument.

As to the other issues Mr. Jones raised on appeal, we adopt and incorporate the analysis and rulings from our prior decision. See Jones I, 2024 WL 1554865, at *1-*2.

AFFIRMED.