USCA11 Case: 24-12878 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 08/12/2025 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-12878 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSHUA COLSTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cr-00011-LAG-TQL-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-12878 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 08/12/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-12878

Before JILL PRYOR, BRASHER, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Joshua Colston appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), arguing that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as ap- plied to him. After careful review, we affirm. The parties dispute the applicable standard of review. We generally review a statute’s constitutionality de novo. United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708, 715 (11th Cir. 2010). But we review for plain error when a defendant raises the issue for the first time on appeal. Id. To demonstrate plain error, the defendant must show (1) “that the district court erred”; (2) “that the error was ‘plain’”; (3) “that the error affected his substantial rights”; and (4) that “the error se- riously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judi- cial proceedings.” United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014) (alterations adopted). Regardless of the standard of review, Colston’s challenge fails. He argues that that § 922(g)(1), as applied to him based on his prior non-violent felony convictions, violates the Second Amend- ment. But we rejected the same challenge in United States v. Dubois, 139 F.4th 887 (11th Cir. 2025). There, we reaffirmed that “prohibi- tions on the possession of firearms by felons” are “presumptively lawful” and upheld § 922(g)(1) as constitutional. Id. at 893. We re- main bound by Dubois “unless and until [its] holding is overruled by the Court sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court.” Smith v. USCA11 Case: 24-12878 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 08/12/2025 Page: 3 of 3

24-12878 Opinion of the Court 3

GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1300 n.8 (11th Cir. 2001). Therefore, we affirm Colston’s conviction. AFFIRMED.