United States v. Eibe Scott

── United States v. Eibe Scott ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 17, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-12828 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12828 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EIBE SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cr-00233-ECM-JTA-1 ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Eibe Scott, proceeding pro se, appeals his convictions for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. He USCA11 Case: 25-12828 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 2 of 7 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12828 argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Sec- ond Amendment as applied to him and that our decision in United States v. Dubois (Dubois II), 139 F.4th 887 (11th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, (No. 25-6281) (U.S. Dec. 4, 2025), was wrongly decided. The government responds by moving for summary affirmance. Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is- sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a mat- ter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the out- come of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the ap- peal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). We review a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute de novo. United States v. Ostrander, 114 F.4th 1348, 1359 (11th Cir. 2024). We have explained that “because a factual, as-applied chal- lenge ‘asserts that a statute cannot be constitutionally applied in particular circumstances, it necessarily requires the development of a factual record for the court to consider.’” Schultz v. Alabama, 42 F.4th 1298, 1319 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting Harris v. Mexican Spe- cialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301, 1308 (11th Cir. 2009)). “This is be- cause an as-applied challenge ‘addresses whether a statute is uncon- stitutional on the facts of a particular case or to a particular party.’” Id. (quoting Harris, 564 F.3d at 1308). USCA11 Case: 25-12828 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 3 of 7 25-12828 Opinion of the Court 3 The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. U.S. Const. amend. II. The federal felon-in-possession stat- ute prohibits anyone who has been convicted of “a crime punisha- ble by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” from keeping a firearm or ammunition. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In Heller, the Supreme Court held that the District of Colum- bia’s total ban on handgun possession, including possession in the home, violated the Second Amendment. D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 574-76, 628, 635 (2008). The Court noted that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is “not unlimited” and that while it