Opinion
23-8025
05-07-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LANCE JAMES TALBOT, Defendant-Appellant.
(D.C. No. 2:22-CR-00116-SWS-1) (D. Wyo.)
Before MORITZ, BALDOCK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT [*]
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument.
Lance James Talbot was charged with being a felon unlawfully in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He moved to dismiss the charge, arguing § 922(g) was unconstitutional, both facially and as applied, under New York State Rifle &Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). After the district court denied Talbot's motion, he entered a conditional plea of guilty, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2), specifically preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The district court sentenced Talbot to a term of imprisonment of fifty-seven months, followed by three years of supervised release.
On appeal, Talbot reasserts Bruen renders his § 922(g) conviction unconstitutional. He recognizes, however, that his constitutional challenge is foreclosed by this court's decision in Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1197, 1202 (10th Cir. 2023) (holding that § 922(g) remains constitutional post-Bruen). Thus, he merely seeks to preserve his claim pending further developments within the Tenth Circuit or at the Supreme Court. This court acknowledges Talbot "has preserved the issue in the hope of further review." United States v. Wheeler, 13 Fed.Appx. 852, 854 (10th Cir. 2001) (unpublished disposition cited solely for its persuasive value) (recognizing appellant preserved issue for possible future review in circumstances similar to those at issue here). Nevertheless, his claim is foreclosed by Vincent. Thus, exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the judgment entered by the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming is hereby AFFIRMED.
[*] This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.