United States of America v. Emanuel E. Goines, Jr.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EMANUEL E. GOINES, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 20-3183
(D.C. No. 6:19-CR-10103-JWB-1)
(D. Kan.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, SEYMOUR, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Emanuel Goines presents two issues on appeal: Is 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1)’s
prohibition on a felon’s possession of a firearm unconstitutional? And, does
prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) require the government to prove that the
accused’s possession of the firearm contemporaneously affected commerce?
Both questions have been answered in the negative by the Supreme Court’s
decision in Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977) and precedents of this
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
October 5, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-3183 Document: 010110586197 Date Filed: 10/05/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

2
court. See, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 603 F.3d 1218, 1220 n.1 (10th Cir. 2010);
United States v. Urbano, 563 F.3d 1150, 1154 (10th Cir. 2009); United States v.
Patton, 451 F.3d 615, 634–35 (10th Cir. 2006); United States v. Dorris, 236 F.3d
582, 584 (10th Cir. 2000).
Goines’s appeal invites us to reexamine Scarborough and our precedents
interpreting it based on the Supreme Court’s decisions in United States v. Lopez, 514
U.S. 549 (1995), United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), and Gonzalez v.
Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). Among other reasons for a reexamination, Goines points to
Justice Thomas’s dissent from the denial of certiorari in Alderman v. United States,
562 U.S. 1163, 131 S. Ct. 700 (2011). In that dissent, Justice Thomas, joined by
Justice Scalia, stated that “Scarborough, as the lower courts have read it, cannot be
reconciled with Lopez[,]” and that “[i]f the Lopez framework is to have any ongoing
vitality, it is up to this Court to prevent it from being undermined by a 1977
precedent that does not squarely address the constitutional issue.” 131 S. Ct. at 702–
03.
But several layers of precedent foreclose us from accepting Goines’s
invitation. “Absent the Supreme Court overturning its own precedent or our own, we
are bound by it.” Contreras ex rel. A.L. v. Doña Ana Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 965
F.3d 1114, 1130 n.3 (10th Cir. 2020). This proposition becomes no less binding on
our decisions if the reasoning of a prior Supreme Court decision is undermined by a
subsequent decision. And the same holds true if two Justices express their personal
views about a case in a dissent from the denial of certiorari. See Schell v. Chief Just.
Appellate Case: 20-3183 Document: 010110586197 Date Filed: 10/05/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
and Justs. of Okla. Sup. Ct., --- F.4th ----, 2021 WL 3877404, at *1 (10th Cir. Aug.
25, 2021). As for our own precedents, absent an en banc decision from our circuit,
three-judge panels are bound by previous panel decisions. United States v.
Manzanares, 956 F.3d 1220, 1225 (10th Cir. 2020). Goines’s en banc petition was
denied on March 23, 2021. So, here, our only task is to determine whether the district
court’s decision was consistent with on-point Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit
precedent. We find that it was and, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291
and reviewing de novo, uphold the decision below.
Affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Gregory A. Phillips
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 20-3183 Document: 010110586197 Date Filed: 10/05/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --