Background
Lynell E. Noble was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He moved to dismiss the indictment, challenging the statute’s constitutionality, but the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska denied the motion.
Noble then pleaded guilty under a conditional plea agreement that preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. He appealed to the Eighth Circuit, renewing his constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1).
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit held that circuit precedent foreclosed Noble’s constitutional arguments. The court cited United States v. Cunningham, which held that § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional, and United States v. Jackson, which rejected an as-applied challenge to the statute.
Because those decisions controlled Noble’s appeal, the panel affirmed the district court’s judgment. The unpublished per curiam opinion did not independently reconsider the merits of the constitutional challenges.
Key Takeaways
- Eighth Circuit precedent establishes that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional.
- The circuit has also rejected an as-applied constitutional challenge to the felon-in-possession prohibition.
- A conditional guilty plea preserved Noble’s ability to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss, but binding precedent foreclosed his arguments.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that challenges to § 922(g)(1) remain foreclosed in the Eighth Circuit under Cunningham and Jackson. District courts and litigants within the circuit remain bound by those precedents unless they are displaced by the en banc court or the Supreme Court.