UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________

No. 23-2533 ________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant

v.

AQUDRE QUAILES

________________

No. 23-2604 ________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant

v.

AYINDA HARPER

________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Nos. 1:21-cr-00176-001; 1:21-cr-00236-001) District Judge: Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson ________________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) July 26, 2024 Before: KRAUSE, CHUNG, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 17, 2025) William Glaser United States Department of Justice Criminal Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Carlo D. Marchioli Office of United States Attorney Middle District of Pennsylvania Sylvia H. Rambo United States Courthouse 1501 N 6th Street, 2nd Floor P.O. Box 202 Harrisburg, PA 17102

Counsel for Appellants Frederick W. Ulrich Office of Federal Public Defender 100 Chestnut Street, Suite 306 Harrisburg, PA 17101

Counsel for Appellee Aqudre Quailes

2 Jonathan R. White Dethlefs Pykosh and Murphy Law 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011

Counsel for Appellee Ayinda Harper

________________

OPINION OF THE COURT ________________ KRAUSE, Circuit Judge.

During the pendency of these appeals, we issued our en banc opinion in Range v. Attorney General (Range II), holding that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to the felon in that case who had completed his sentence and filed a declaratory judgment action seeking “protection from prosecution under § 922(g)(1) for any future possession of a firearm.” No. 21-2835, 2024 WL 5199447, at *8 (3d Cir. Dec. 23, 2024). We also held during the pendency of these appeals that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to felons who have not completed their sentences. United States v. Moore, 111 F.4th 266, 273 (3d Cir. 2024). Although the defendant in Moore was on federal supervised release, Moore’s holding and this Nation’s “history and tradition” of “disarming convicts who are completing their sentences,” id., applies with equal force to defendants who are on state supervised release— including a sentence of parole or probation.

Here, Appellees Aqudre Quailes and Ayinda Harper were separately charged with being felons in possession of a

3 firearm in violation of § 922(g)(1), but the District Court dismissed both indictments as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. That was an error. Because neither Quailes nor Harper had completed service of their criminal sentence, neither had “a Second Amendment right to possess a firearm.” Id. We therefore will reverse the District Court’s orders and remand the cases for further proceedings. I. Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns two cases that we have consolidated because they raise the same issue. In 2020, Appellee Harper was serving a sentence of Pennsylvania state probation,1 as well as parole, when his probation officer became aware of several photographs Harper posted on social media in which Harper was holding firearms. Soon after, several probation officers conducted a home visit to Harper’s approved state parole address, during which Harper admitted to possessing marijuana and drug paraphernalia in violation of the conditions of his parole. After detaining Harper, the officers discovered a semiautomatic pistol inside of a backpack on the couch and found pictures of Harper holding the