Order — United States v. Jonathan Thomas (S.D. Miss., Dkt. 26, March 13, 2024)

Summary

This is an Order in United States of America v. Jonathan Thomas, No. 2:22-CR-9-KHJ-MTP, in the United States District Court, Southern District of Mississippi, Eastern Division, dated the 13th day of March, 2024. It denies Defendant Jonathan Thomas's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment [23], in which he argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him, citing N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen. The Court states that it remains bound by pre-Bruen Fifth Circuit precedents upholding Section 922(g)(1), and it incorporates by reference its holding and Order in United States v. Brown, No. 3:18-CR-117. It adds that arguments not addressed would not have changed the outcome. The order is signed by United States District Judge Kristi H. Johnson.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

      Case 2:22-cr-00009-KHJ-MTP Document 26 Filed 03/13/24 Page 1 of 2




                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                     SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
                           EASTERN DIVISION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V.                                                          NO. 2:22-CR-9-KHJ-MTP

JONATHAN THOMAS


                                       ORDER

      Before the Court is Defendant Jonathan Thomas’ [23] Motion to Dismiss the

Indictment. The Court denies the motion.

      Thomas has a 2006 conviction for armed robbery. Id. at 1. The [3] Indictment

charges Thomas with knowingly violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits a

person from possessing a firearm in or affecting commerce if he “has been convicted

in any court of[] a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one

year.” See also id. § 924(a)(8) (providing that a knowing violation is punishable by

up to 15 years of imprisonment). Thomas moves to dismiss the Indictment, arguing

that Section 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him. [23] (citing N.Y. State

Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)).

      Addressing a similar challenge, this Court concluded that it remains bound

by pre-Bruen Fifth Circuit precedents upholding Section 922(g)(1). See Order [45],

United States v. Brown, No. 3:18-CR-117 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 12, 2024). As to that

issue, Thomas raises the same arguments that the defendant in Brown raised. See

Reply [25] at 1−4; Reply [32] at 1−4, United States v. Brown, No. 3:18-CR-117 (S.D.
      Case 2:22-cr-00009-KHJ-MTP Document 26 Filed 03/13/24 Page 2 of 2




Miss. Sept. 20, 2023). While Thomas offers some additional arguments and

authorities relevant to other issues, none change the Court’s analysis or conclusion

that it remains bound by pre-Bruen Fifth Circuit precedents. The Court thus

incorporates by reference its holding and Order in Brown. See Order [45], Brown,

No. 3:18-CR-117.

      The Court has considered all arguments. Those not addressed would not have

changed the outcome. For the stated reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant

Jonathan Thomas’ [23] Motion to Dismiss the Indictment.

      SO ORDERED, this 13th day of March, 2024.

                                              s/ Kristi H. Johnson
                                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE




                                          2


File and source

File

26.pdf

Size

85,229 bytes

SHA-256

8f81afa7f1e3a1325b3c0384181fd78dd214e7994c902be68169a70150d0b9c6

Our copy

26.pdf

Original

No public link identified.