USA v. Ross

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
KYLE M. ROSS,
Defendant.
Case No. 4:24-cr-00022-DCN-1
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Defendant Kyle Ross’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Dkt. 39)
and Motion to Continue to Hold in Abeyance (Dkt. 55). The Court does not find oral
argument necessary in this situation and will forego the same. Upon review, and for the
reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES both Motions.
II. BACKGROUND
On January 23, 2024, a federal grand jury charged Ross in a single count indictment
with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Dkt. 2.
On February 21, 2024, Ross filed a Notice of Intent to Plead Guilty (Dkt. 18) and
on March 28, 2024, he entered a plea of guilty to the charged conduct (Dkt. 22).
On May 9, 2024, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in
United States v. Duarte, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional unless a
defendant’s prior felony offense was “distinctly similar” to a Founding-era analogue
Case 4:24-cr-00022-DCN Document 58 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 3

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
associated with severe punishment (such as execution, life imprisonment, or estate
forfeiture) tantamount to a lifetime deprivation of Second Amendment rights. 101 F.4th
657, 689 (9th Cir. 2024). Five days later, the government filed a petition for rehearing en
banc. The Ninth Circuit eventually granted the request.
In light of the Ninth Circuit’s original holding in Duarte, Ross filed a Motion to
Withdraw Plea of Guilty (Dkt. 36) and Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Dkt. 39). The Court
granted Ross’s Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea a short time later. Dkt. 41.
The Government moved to hold Ross’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment in Abeyance
pending the outcome of the Duarte en banc panel. Dkt. 40. The Court ultimately granted
that motion as well. Dkt. 50.
On May 9, 2025, the Ninth Circuit en banc panel issued its decision holding that 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is “not unconstitutional as applied to non-violent felons . . . .” United
States v. Duarte, 137 F.4th 743, 749 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc).
Ross then moved the Court to continue the prior abeyance until the mandate issued
in Duarte. Dkt. 55. The Government opposed the Motion. Dkt. 56. The Court has not yet
ruled on that motion.
In the intervening months, Duarte filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the
United States Supreme Court. That was recently denied. Duarte v. United States, No. 25-
425, 2026 WL 135692, at *1 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2026). Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit issued
its mandate on January 30, 2026.
III. ANALYSYS
The Court has communicated with Counsel regarding this matter. Ross recognizes
Case 4:24-cr-00022-DCN Document 58 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 3

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
the Court must deny his Motion to Dismiss Indictment under the circumstances. As the
Court has noted elsewhere, it fully agrees with the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Duarte: §
922(g)(1) meets the test outlined in Bruen, is consistent with this Nation’s historical
tradition of firearm regulations, and is constitutional. What’s more, because a “felony-by-
felony” comparison is not required, the application of § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as to
“all felons.” Duarte, 137 F.4th at 761.
Therefore, consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s holding, Ross’s Motion to Dismiss
Indictment is DENIED. Furthermore, because the mandate has now issued, Ross’s Motion
to Continue Abeyance is MOOT.
IV. ORDER
1. 	Ross’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Dkt. 39) is DENIED.
2. 	Ross’s Motion to Continue to Hold in Abeyance (Dkt. 55) is denied as MOOT.
3. 	The Court will issue a new trial order shortly.
DATED: February 20, 2026
_________________________
David C. Nye
U.S. District Court Judge
Case 4:24-cr-00022-DCN Document 58 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 3