govinfo:USCOURTS-ohsd-1_24-cr-00012-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:24-cr-00012 
Plaintiff, Judge Matthew W. McFarland 
V. 
ADONIS O'NEAL, 
Defendant. 
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF (Doc. 40) 
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) 
Relief (Doc. 40). The Government did not respond to the Motion, and the time to do so 
has passed. Thus, this matter is ripe for the Court's review. 
Defendant Adonis O'Neal pied guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment, Possession of 
a Firearm by a Prohibited Person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). (See 12/03/2024 
Minute Entry.) He was sentenced to term of imprisonment of 37 months, with credit for 
time served, followed by three years of supervised release. (Judgment, Doc. 35.) As part 
of his sentence, he was subject to forfeiture of the firearm underlying the offense. (Id.) 
Now, Defendant moves for relief from his conviction under§ 922(g)(1). (Motion, 
Doc. 40.) In his Motion, Defendant states that the Seventh Circuit recently concluded that 
§ 922(g)(1) is "invalid on its face in every application under the Second Amendment." (Id. 
(citing United States v. Glen Prince, 171 F.4th 1009 (7th Cir. 2026)).) In light of this decision, 
Case: 1:24-cr-00012-MWM Doc #: 41 Filed: 06/02/26 Page: 1 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>
Defendant asks whether this Court "has adopted the Seventh Circuit's position 
concerning the invalidation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)." (Id.) If so, Defendant requests 
"appointment of counsel to aid him in his filings to the Court for relief." (Id.) 
To answer Defendant's question, this Court sits in the Sixth Circuit, not the 
Seventh Circuit. Accordingly, the Court is not bound by decisions issued by the Seventh 
Circuit; rather, it must follow Sixth Circuit precedent. To that end, the Court notes that 
the Sixth Circuit has recently reiterated the validity of§ 922(g). United States v. Williams, 
113 F.4th 637, 657 (6th Cir. 2022). The court in Williams found that the statute remains 
valid on its face under the Second Amendment. Id. Thus, this Court, bound by the 
Williams decision, finds that Defendant is not entitled to relief on this basis. 
The Court, therefore, DENIES Defendant's Motion for Relief (Doc. 40). 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
By: 
2 
UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
/4~11.-itf}-AO 
JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND 
Case: 1:24-cr-00012-MWM Doc #: 41 Filed: 06/02/26 Page: 2 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight