Opinion
CR-23-230-PRW
09-08-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KEYON MARQUIS BREWER, Defendant.
ORDER
PATRICK R. WCRICIT', UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Keyon Marquis Brewer is a violent felon with prior convictions for Robbery with a Firearm and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, for which he received lengthy sentences from an Oklahoma court.Not long after his release from prison, Brewer was pulled over while driving a car with a pistol in the glove box, which he claimed belonged to his girlfriend (she denied ownership of the gun). And not long after that, Brewer, his girlfriend, and two other men were identified as suspects in an armed robbery of construction workers repairing an Oklahoma City street. As part of the investigation of that robbery, the apartment that Brewer shared with his girlfriend was searched, and an AR-15 style rifle was found. Brewer admitted that the rifle was his, and that he had fired it. Brewer was subsequently indicted by a federal grand jury for being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
See Oklahoma v. Brewer, No. CF-2013-1870 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct. Nov. 15, 2013).
Brewer has moved for dismissal of that charge, arguing that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment. A hearing was held on that Motion to Dismiss the Indictment on September 6, 2023, at which argument was heard, and the motion was orally denied with this written order to follow.
In 2009, the Tenth Circuit in United States v. McCane rejected a post-Heller challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to a violent felon like McCane, relying on the Supreme Court's statement in District of Columbia v. Heller that “‘nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons[.]'” Brewer argues that McCane is no longer good law after the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen. But a circuit decision remains good law unless “the Supreme Court issues an intervening decision that is contrary to or invalidates . . . previous analysis.”Given Bruen's unequivocally favorable treatment of Heller, it cannot be read as contradicting or invalidating McCane's reliance on Heller. For that reason, McCane remains binding precedent that this district court is duty bound to follow in a case like this, which, like McCane, involves a defendant with prior felony convictions for violent crimes.
United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1047 (10th Cir. 2009).
Id. (quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626-27 (2008)).
142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022).
United States v. Brooks, 751 F.3d 1204, 1209 (10th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Motion to Dismiss the Indictment is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.