United States of America v. Lamar R. Bennett

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted July 23, 2026
Decided July 24, 2026
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
REBECCA TAIBLESON, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1563
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LAMAR R. BENNETT,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.
No. 3:24-CR-30004-DWD
David W. Dugan,
Judge.
O R D E R
The parties jointly move to waive oral argument because appellant Lamar
Bennett’s arguments are foreclosed by our recent decisions in United States v. Prince, 171
F.4th 1009 (7th Cir. 2026), and United States v. Watson, 171 F.4th 1012, 1024-25 (7th Cir.
2026). We agree that oral argument is not necessary, and resolve this appeal based on
the briefs and record on appeal. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2).
Bennett pleaded guilty to three counts of possessing a firearm as a felon in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He later moved to withdraw his guilty plea and to
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 25-1563 Page 2
dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment. The
district court denied his motions and sentenced Bennett to 125 months’ imprisonment.
In his opening brief Bennett argues that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment
both facially and as applied to him.∗ But he concedes that his facial challenge is
foreclosed by Prince, 171 F.4th at 1011, in which we held that § 922(g)(1) is not
unconstitutional on its face. In Watson we held that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as
applied to individuals convicted of “dangerous” felonies, including possession with
intent to distribute a controlled substance. 171 F.4th at 1024-25. Bennett was previously
convicted of possessing heroin with intent to deliver and thus concedes that he cannot
prevail on an as-applied challenge in this circuit. He explains that he wishes to preserve
his arguments for review by the Supreme Court.
We agree that Bennett’s challenges to his § 922(g)(1) conviction are foreclosed by
our recent precedent and AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
∗ Bennett also argues that he did not waive his right to appeal as part of his plea
agreement, but the government does not seek to enforce the appeal waiver.

-- 2 of 2 --