United States v. Jasper Stuckett

── United States v. Jasper Stuckett ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 30, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-14442 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 04/30/2026 Page: 1 of 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-14442 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JASPER JERMAINE STUCKETT, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:25-cr-00010-LAG-ALS-1 ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JILL PRYOR and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jasper Jermaine Stuckett appeals his conviction for pos- sessing a machinegun. 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). He argues that section USCA11 Case: 25-14442 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 04/30/2026 Page: 2 of 2 2 Opinion of the Court 25-14442 922(o) violates the Second Amendment on its face. The govern- ment moves for summary affirmance. We grant the government’s motion and affirm. 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). The government is clearly right as a matter of law. Id. Stuck- ett did not challenge the constitutionality of section 922(o) in the district court, so we review his challenge for plain error. United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708, 715 (11th Cir. 2010). And our binding precedent forecloses Stuckett’s argument that section 922(o) vio- lates the Second Amendment. In United States v. Alsenat, we re- jected the same argument and held that, under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008), the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of machineguns, so section 922(o) is consti- tutional. __ F.4th __, No. 24-14058 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2026). Thus, we GRANT the government’s motion for summary affirmance and AFFIRM Stuckett’s conviction.