United States of America v. Antwon Partee, aka Antwan Partee, aka Antwon Ellis

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 24a0389n.06
No. 24-5114
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANTWON PARTEE, aka Antwan Partee, aka
Antwon Ellis,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF TENNESEE
OPINION
Before: BOGGS, KETHLEDGE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Antwon Partee pled guilty to knowing possession of a
firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He now argues that § 922(g)(1)
on its face violates the Second Amendment. We reject his argument and affirm.
Memphis Police Department officers saw Antwon Partee make a hand-to-hand drug deal
in front of a gas station. When the officers approached Partee, he fled into a nearby convenience
store. After a struggle, the officers detained him and took a loaded Ruger LCP .22-caliber handgun
from his front pants pocket. Partee admitted that he kept the gun for protection. The officers then
checked Partee’s criminal record and found that he had a prior felony conviction and several
misdemeanor domestic-violence convictions.
A grand jury indicted Partee for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count I) and possession of a firearm by a convicted domestic-violence
misdemeanant, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) (Count II). Partee pled guilty to Count I in

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 24-5114, United States v. Partee
-2-
exchange for the Government’s promise to move to dismiss Count II. He then moved to dismiss
Count I on the ground that § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional. The district court denied his
motion and sentenced him to a 77-month term of imprisonment.
We review the district court’s denial of Partee’s motion to dismiss de novo. United States
v. Crayton, 357 F.3d 560, 564 (6th Cir. 2004). A facial challenge is the “most difficult” one to
mount successfully, since the challenger must show that none of the statute’s potential applications
is valid. United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889, 1898 (2024). And our court recently held that,
because “most applications of § 922(g)(1) are constitutional, the provision is not susceptible to a
facial challenge.” United States v. Williams, --- F.4th ---, 2024 WL 3912894, at *13 (6th Cir. Aug.
23, 2024). We therefore reject Partee’s challenge here.
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

-- 2 of 2 --