United States of America v. Antonio Marshall, also known as Tony Quick Bear

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2310
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Antonio Marshall, also known as Tony Quick Bear,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Central
____________
Submitted: March 17, 2025
Filed: May 14, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, ERICKSON and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
A grand jury charged Antonio Marshall with unlawful possession of a firearm
as a felon. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He moved to dismiss the indictment on the
ground that the statutory prohibition violates his right to keep and bear arms under

-- 1 of 2 --

the Second Amendment. The district court* denied the motion, and Marshall pleaded
guilty pursuant to a conditional plea agreement that reserved his right to appeal the
denial of his motion to dismiss. The court sentenced Marshall to twenty-six months’
imprisonment, to run concurrently with a previous sentence, and three years of
supervised release.
Marshall contends on appeal that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face and
as applied to him in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S.
1 (2022), and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). He asserts that the
Second Amendment guarantees his right to possess a firearm, despite his status as a
thrice-convicted felon, because none of his prior offenses qualifies as a “violent”
offense. As Marshall concedes, however, his arguments are foreclosed by circuit
precedent. See United States v. Cunningham, 114 F.4th 671, 675 (8th Cir. 2024)
(“[T]here is no need for felony-by-felony determinations regarding the
constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to a particular defendant.”); United States
v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120, 1126 (8th Cir. 2024) (holding that § 922(g)(1) is
constitutional on its face and as applied to “convicted felons” after Bruen), petition
for cert. filed, (U.S. Feb. 10, 2025) (No. 24-6517).
The order denying the motion to dismiss and the judgment of the district court
are affirmed. The government’s motion to supplement the record is denied.
______________________________
*The Honorable Roberto A. Lange, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --