United States v. Emanuel Soroa

USCA11 Case: 25-13831 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 08/18/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-13831 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EMANUEL DANY SOROA,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cr-20279-DSL-1 ____________________

Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Emanuel Soroa appeals his conviction for one count of pos- session of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, arguing

USCA11 Case: 25-13831 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 08/18/2026 Page: 2 of 3 2 Opinion of the Court 25-13831 that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional under the Sec- ond Amendment, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The government moves for summary affirmance, arguing that binding authority forecloses Soroa’s sole argument on appeal. Af- ter careful review, we grant the government’s motion and affirm.

Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is- sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a mat- ter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the out-come of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 1

We generally review challenges to the constitutionality of a statute de novo. United States v. Gruezo, 66 F.4th 1284, 1292 (11th Cir. 2023). However, under our prior panel precedent rule, we are bound to follow our own prior binding precedent until it is over- ruled by the Supreme Court or this Court sitting en banc. See United States v. White, 837 F.3d 1225, 1228 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. Lee, 886 F.3d 1161, 1163 & n.3 (11th Cir. 2018).

1 Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued “prior to the close of business” September 30, 1981, are binding on this Court. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).

USCA11 Case: 25-13831 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 08/18/2026 Page: 3 of 3 25-13831 Opinion of the Court 3

We have several prior precedents holding that Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional under the Second Amendment in all cir- cumstances. United States v. Dubois, 139 F.4th 887, 889 (11th Cir. 2025) (“[S]ection 922(g)(1) is constitutional under the Second Amendment.”), cert. denied, __ S. Ct. __, 2026 WL 135685 (2026) (mem.); United States v. Hicks, 166 F.4th 933, 938–39 (11th Cir. 2026) (similar); United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768, 771 (11th Cir. 2010) (similar). None of these precedents have been overruled nor un- dermined to the point of abrogation. See Dubois, 139 F.4th at 892; Hicks, 166 F.4th at 938–39. For that reason, we must reject Soroa’s argument and hold that Section 922(g) is constitutional. Thus, “there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” so we GRANT the government’s motion for summary affir- mance. Groendyke Transp., 406 F.2d at 1162.

AFFIRMED.