USA v. Hall

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CR-25-341-D
)
CLEVELAND DAVID HALL, II, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	Defendant’s 	Motion 	to 	Dismiss 	the 	Indictment 	as
Unconstitutional [Doc. No. 23]. Defendant argues the Second Amendment of the United
States Constitution protects his right, as a felon, to possess a firearm in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). According to Defendant, § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional.
Defendant stands charged in a one-count indictment of being a felon in possession
of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In his motion, Defendant argues that
§ 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because the government cannot satisfy the burden it must
meet “when seeking to regulate and criminalize weapon related offenses” [Doc. No. 23] as
set forth in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). But as
Defendant acknowledges, there is binding precedent on this matter.
Upon consideration, the motion is denied. The Tenth Circuit’s holding in Vincent v.
Bondi, 127 F.4th 1263 (10th Cir. 2025), petition for cert. filed (U.S. May 12, 2025) (No.
24-1155) controls. There, the Circuit Court analyzed Supreme Court precedent—including
Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi—as well as Tenth Circuit precedent in United States v. McCane,
Case 5:25-cr-00341-D Document 41 Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 2

2
573 	F.3d 	1037, 	1047 	(10th 	Cir. 	2009). The 	Circuit 	Court 	ultimately 	“upheld 	the
constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) for all individuals convicted of felonies.” Vincent, 127 F.4th
at 1266; see also District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008) (“nothing in
[Heller] should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of
firearms by felons”). According to the Circuit Court, district courts need not engage in “an
individualized inquiry concerning felons.” Vincent, 127 F.4th at 1266 (citations omitted)
(applying § 922(g)(1) to a criminal defendant convicted of bank fraud).
This Court “must follow the precedent of this circuit.” United States v. Spedalieri,
910 F.2d 707, 709 n.2 (10th Cir. 1990).
IT IS THEREFORE 	ORDERED 	that 	Defendant’s 	Motion 	to 	Dismiss 	the
Indictment as Unconstitutional [Doc. No. 23] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of November, 2025.
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cr-00341-D Document 41 Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 2