United States of America v. Joseph Frederick Johnson

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH FREDERICK JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 25-5159
(D.C. No. 4:24-CR-00402-GKF-1)
(N.D. Okla.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MORITZ, BALDOCK, and EID, Circuit Judges.**
_________________________________
A federal grand jury charged Defendant Joseph Johnson with two counts of being a
felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The
indictment listed Defendant’s 2015 Colorado state marijuana cultivation conviction as the
predicate felony. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing, as pertinent
here, that § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment as applied to him because his
predicate conviction was not a violent felony and did not render him dangerous. After the
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
submitted without oral argument.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
April 29, 2026
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 25-5159 Document: 38 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

2
district court denied his motion to dismiss, Defendant pleaded guilty to both counts of the
indictment but reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion. The court sentenced
Defendant to 366 days’ imprisonment and he appealed. In his opening brief, Defendant
acknowledges that Tenth Circuit precedent requires us to uphold the district court’s denial
of his motion to dismiss the indictment as violative of the Second Amendment. Defendant
tells us he filed the present appeal to preserve his right to seek en banc review from this
Court or petition the Supreme Court for certiorari. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We affirm.
Defendant is correct that our decision in Vincent v. Bondi, 127 F.4th 1263 (10th Cir.
2025), cert. denied 2026 WL 568283 (March 2, 2026), upheld the constitutionality of
§ 922(g)(1) over a Second Amendment objection as to any individual convicted of a prior
felony, including a non-violent felony offender. That opinion sets forth the rationale for
this Court’s holding and we need not repeat that rationale here. See also United States v.
Warner, 131 F.4th 1137 (10th Cir. 2025) (Despite “the shifting Second Amendment
landscape,” Vincent v. Bondi governs defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of
§ 922(g)(1) as applied to non-violent felony offenders.).
Because controlling Tenth Circuit precedent compels this panel to uphold the
district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment as violative of the
Second Amendment, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See United States v.
White, 782 F.3d 1118, 1126–27 (10th Cir. 2015) (one Tenth Circuit panel cannot overrule
the judgment of a prior Tenth Circuit panel absent a Tenth Circuit en banc or Supreme
Court decision contrary to the prior panel’s analysis).
Appellate Case: 25-5159 Document: 38 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 25-5159 Document: 38 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --