United States of America v. Adair Dorsey

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 24a0393n.06
No. 24-5129
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ADAIR DORSEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
TENNESSEE
OPINION
Before: SILER, GRIFFIN, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.
MATHIS, Circuit Judge. A grand jury indicted Adair Dorsey for being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Dorsey pleaded guilty to the offense.
Prior to sentencing, Dorsey moved to dismiss the felon-in-possession charge, arguing that
§ 922(g)(1) violates the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. The district court denied
Dorsey’s motion to dismiss and sentenced him to 188 months’ imprisonment. Dorsey timely
appealed.
On appeal, Dorsey renews his argument that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment
on its face. To succeed on a facial challenge, Dorsey would need to “establish that no set
of circumstances exists under which [§ 922(g)(1)] would be valid.” United States v. Rahimi,
144 S. Ct. 1889, 1898 (2024) (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987)).
We review the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) de novo. United States v. Loney, 331 F.3d 516,
524(6th Cir. 2003).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 24-5129, United States v. Dorsey
- 2 -
Based on a recent published decision from this court, § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional.
In United States v. Williams, we held “that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional on its face.” 113 F.4th
637, 662 (6th Cir. 2024). We reasoned that: (1) “Congress may disarm” dangerous individuals;
(2) “Section 922(g)(1) is an attempt to” disarm dangerous individuals; and (3) “most applications
of § 922(g)(1) are constitutional.” Id. at 657. We are, of course, bound by Williams. See Salmi
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 774 F.2d 685, 689 (6th Cir. 1985).
We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

-- 2 of 2 --