United States v. Maxon Alsenat

── United States v. Maxon Alsenat ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 21, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-14058 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 04/21/2026 Page: 1 of 8 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-14058 ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MAXON ALSENAT, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:23-cr-60209-DSL-1 ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and BRASHER and ABUDU, Cir- cuit Judges. WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge: This appeal requires us to decide whether the Second Amendment protects the possession of machineguns. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(1). A grand jury indicted Maxon Alsenat for knowingly USCA11 Case: 24-14058 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 04/21/2026 Page: 2 of 8 2 Opinion of the Court 24-14058 possessing a machinegun conversion device. After the district court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, Alsenat pleaded guilty. He renews his challenge to the constitutionality of section 922(o) on appeal. Because machineguns are not protected by the Second Amendment as weapons in common use for lawful purposes, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND A grand jury indicted Maxon Alsenat for possession of a ma- chinegun. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(1). The indictment alleged that Alsenat knowingly possessed a machinegun conversion device, which meets the statutory definition of a machinegun. See id. § 921(a)(24); 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). Alsenat moved to dismiss the in- dictment on the grounds that section 922(o)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to adult citizens with no felony convictions. The district court denied Alsenat’s motion to dismiss. It ruled that machineguns are not in common use and are dangerous and unusual. Alternatively, it ruled that machinegun conversion de- vices possessed without a separate firearm are “accessories” or “ac- coutrements” and not “Arms” protected by the Second Amend- ment. Alsenat pleaded guilty. He stipulated that the government would have been able to prove that he knowingly sold three ma- chinegun conversion devices to an undercover law enforcement of- ficer. The district court sentenced him to 24 months of imprison- ment and three years of supervised release. USCA11 Case: 24-14058 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 04/21/2026 Page: 3 of 8 24-14058 Opinion of the Court 3 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the constitutionality of a statute that defines a criminal offense de novo. United States v. Gruezo, 66 F.4th 1284, 1292 (11th Cir. 2023). III. DISCUSSION In Class v. United States, the Supreme Court held that “a guilty plea by itself ” does not “bar[] a federal criminal defendant from challenging the constitutionality of the statute of conviction on direct appeal.” 138 S. Ct. 798, 803 (2018). A guilty plea does not waive a challenge that “can be resolved by examining the face of the indictment or the record at the time of the plea without requir- ing further proceedings.” United States v. S