United States of America v. Michael Anthony Rangel

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL ANTHONY RANGEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 25-4075
(D.C. No. 1:22-CR-00092-HCN-1)
(D. Utah)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before McHUGH, BALDOCK, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Michael Anthony Rangel was convicted of being a felon in possession of a
firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court
sentenced him to 84 months in prison. Mr. Rangel appeals, arguing the district court
plainly erred because § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment in
light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). He
concedes that current Tenth Circuit law forecloses this argument, and he seeks only
* 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent,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
April 27, 2026
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 25-4075 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 04/27/2026 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

2
to preserve this issue “should the Supreme Court grant certiorari and change the law
on this issue while his appeal is still pending.” Opening Br. at 3.
The Supreme Court in Bruen considered whether a state licensing regime
violated the Second Amendment. 597 U.S. at 11. The Court adopted a framework
for evaluating whether a law infringes on the Second Amendment: any conduct
covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment is presumptively protected
unless the government can demonstrate a historical tradition of “relevantly similar”
firearms regulations from the founding era. Id. at 24, 28–29.
In Vincent v. Garland (“Vincent I”), 80 F.4th 1197, 1201–02 (10th Cir. 2023),
this court held that Bruen did not abrogate the Tenth Circuit’s case law upholding the
constitutionality of § 922(g)(1). The Supreme Court granted Vincent certiorari,
vacated the judgment, and remanded. Vincent v. Garland, 144 S. Ct. 2708 (2024).
The Court directed the Tenth Circuit to further consider Vincent’s argument in light
of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). In Rahimi, the Supreme Court
upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(8), which prohibits individuals subject to a
domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm. See 602 U.S. at 684–
85, 700.
On remand, this court “freshly considered” Vincent’s argument that
§ 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional and concluded “that Rahimi doesn’t undermine the
panel’s earlier reasoning or result.” Vincent v. Bondi (“Vincent II”), 127 F.4th 1263,
1264 (10th Cir. 2025). The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Vincent II last month.
Vincent v. Bondi, -- S. Ct. --, 2026 WL 568283 (Mar. 2, 2026).
Appellate Case: 25-4075 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 04/27/2026 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Because there has been no change in Tenth Circuit law, we affirm the
judgment of the district court.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 25-4075 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 04/27/2026 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --