United States of America v. Laura Gema Carroll

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAURA GEMA CARROLL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 25-7066
(D.C. No. 6:24-CR-00120-RAW-1)
(E.D. Okla.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before HARTZ, MATHESON, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
________________________________
Defendant Laura Gema Carroll appeals her conviction for possessing a firearm
as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). As Defendant concedes, we are bound by
precedent to reject the argument she raises on appeal. Exercising jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, we therefore uphold the conviction.
Defendant was charged with a violation of § 922(g)(1) for “possessing a semi-
automatic pistol that had been shipped and transported in interstate commerce, along
* 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. This order and judgment is not binding precedent,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.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
May 27, 2026
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 25-7066 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 05/27/2026 Page: 1

-- 1 of 2 --

2
with accompanying ammunition for the firearm.” Aplt. Br. at 2. The indictment
alleged that she had a prior felony conviction. Defendant moved to dismiss the
indictment on the ground that § 922(g) violates the Second Amendment as applied to
her because her prior felonies were nonviolent. The district court denied the motion.
See United States v. Carroll, No.CR-24-120-RAW, 2025 WL 693240, at *2 (E.D.
Okla. Mar. 4, 2025). Defendant pleaded guilty but reserved her right to appeal the
court’s ruling on her Second Amendment challenge.
On appeal Defendant asserts the same Second Amendment challenge but
concedes that this challenge is foreclosed by our precedent. In United States v.
McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1047 (10th Cir. 2009), we upheld the constitutionality of
banning felons from possessing firearms under § 922(g). We recently reexamined
that holding in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), and determined,
once again, that “the Second Amendment doesn’t prevent application of § 922(g)(1)
to nonviolent offenders.” Vincent v. Bondi, 127 F. 4th 1263, 1266 (10th Cir. 2025),
cert. denied, 2026 WL 568283 (Mar. 2, 2026).
We AFFIRM the judgment below and DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 25-7066 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 05/27/2026 Page: 2

-- 2 of 2 --