Christopher Michael Stanton Jr. was charged with three counts following a search of his residence that uncovered cocaine, marijuana, ammunition, and a handgun. Stanton admitted to selling drugs and knowing about the firearm. He had prior Florida convictions for drug possession and controlled substance offenses, making him a felon. Stanton pleaded guilty to all three counts, including possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The plea agreement reserved the right to appeal the sentence. The district court sentenced him to concurrent terms for the drug and felon possession counts, plus a consecutive term for the firearm-in-furtherance count. On appeal, Stanton raised a Second Amendment challenge for the first time, arguing that both statutes were unconstitutional as applied to him. Because he did not raise this issue at the district court, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the claims for plain error.
The court addressed two distinct statutory challenges under the plain error standard, which requires a clear or obvious error based on established law. First, regarding the felon-in-possession charge under § 922(g)(1), the court noted that Stanton acknowledged the binding nature of Eleventh Circuit precedent. The court relied on United States v. Rozier and United States v. Dubois II, which held that statutory restrictions on firearm possession by felons are a constitutional avenue to restrict Second Amendment rights. Stanton argued that recent Supreme Court decisions in Bruen and Rahimi abrogated this precedent. The court rejected this, citing Dubois II's reliance on Rahimi's statement that prohibitions on felons possessing guns remain presumptively lawful. Under the prior panel precedent rule, the current panel was bound by Rozier and Dubois II and could not reconsider the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) without a Supreme Court ruling or an en banc decision. Second, regarding the § 924(c) enhancement, the court found that Stanton failed to cite any controlling authority from the Supreme Court or the Eleventh Circuit holding the statute unconstitutional. The court reiterated that an error is not plain unless a legal rule has been explicitly resolved by on-point precedent. Since no such rule existed, the second prong of the plain error test was not met.
The decision reinforces the Eleventh Circuit's stance that convicted felons cannot successfully challenge firearm possession bans under the Second Amendment based on current Supreme Court jurisprudence. It clarifies that litigants raising constitutional challenges for the first time on appeal face a high bar under plain error review, requiring explicit precedent to establish that an error is plain. The case is remanded to the district court with instructions to maintain the existing sentence, leaving no unresolved doctrinal questions regarding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) within the circuit.