United States of America v. Jeremy Donte Hurdle

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 24a0460n.06
No. 24-5067
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JEREMY DONTE HURDLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
KENTUCKY
OPINION
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; BUSH and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Jeremy Hurdle argues that the federal statute barring felons
from possessing firearms facially violates the Second Amendment. Because we recently rejected
an identical challenge, our precedent forecloses Hurdle’s claim. We thus affirm.
In June 2022, police officers investigating stolen firearms traveled to Hurdle’s home in
Boyle County, Kentucky, and spotted him leaving in a car driven by someone else. The police
stopped the car. A consensual search uncovered a total of seven firearms either near Hurdle’s front
passenger seat or in the trunk. Someone had stolen at least one of the guns. Hurdle had several
prior convictions, including for aggravated robbery, assault, and child abuse. So he could not
lawfully possess firearms.
A federal grand jury indicted Hurdle for illegally possessing firearms as a felon in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Hurdle moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the felon-

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 24-5067, United States v. Hurdle
2
in-possession statute—§ 922(g)(1)—violated the Second Amendment on its face. The district
court denied his motion.
Hurdle entered a conditional plea agreement. He admitted that he had possessed four of
the firearms found in the car and that he could not lawfully possess them. But he reserved the right
to appeal his claim that § 922(g)(1) facially violated the Second Amendment. At the same time,
he conceded that he had “waive[d] any argument on appeal” that § 922(g)(1) violated the Second
Amendment “as applied to his particular circumstances[.]” Plea Agreement, R.29, PageID 250.
The district court sentenced Hurdle to 78 months’ imprisonment.
Hurdle now renews his argument that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment on its
face. In support, he relies on the historically rooted test that the Supreme Court adopted to analyze
Second Amendment claims in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1
(2022). But we recently rejected a similar facial challenge to this statute under Bruen’s test. See
United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637, 648–57 (6th Cir. 2024). Our decision in Williams binds
us here. See United States v. Dorsey, 2024 WL 4250319, at *1 (6th Cir. Sept. 20, 2024); United
States v. Partee, 2024 WL 4224982, at *1 (6th Cir. Sept. 18, 2024). And while Williams left open
the possibility that defendants could raise as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1), see 113 F.4th at
657, Hurdle did not preserve that type of challenge in his plea agreement.
We affirm.

-- 2 of 2 --