UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ > No. 24-5025 │ v. │ │ TARRENCE PARHAM, aka Terrance Sullivan, │ Defendant-Appellant. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis. No. 2:21-cr-20181-1—Sheryl H. Lipman, District Judge.

Decided and Filed: October 17, 2024

Before: GILMAN, GRIFFIN, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Brian Daniel Mounce, Unam Peter Oh, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellant. Naya Bedini, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee.

_________________

OPINION _________________

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.

Defendant Tarrence Parham pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. During sentencing, the district court concluded that Parham’s prior Tennessee conviction for attempted second-degree murder constituted a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines and thus increased his base offense level. Parham challenges that conclusion on appeal, as well as the district court’s refusal to dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment grounds. No. 24-5025 United States v. Parham Page 2

Because the elements of attempted second-degree murder in Tennessee categorically match the Guidelines’ definition of a “crime of violence,” and because binding precedent forecloses his Second Amendment argument, we affirm.

I.

Parham is no stranger to crime. His lengthy criminal record includes multiple felony convictions under Tennessee law for theft, attempted aggravated burglary, reckless homicide, attempted second-degree murder, and reckless aggravated assault. Most serious—and critical to this appeal—is Parham’s attempted second-degree murder conviction. During an argument, Parham fired several shots at a man. Although he missed the intended target, his bullets hit an eight-year-old child playing on a playground. Parham fled the scene and eventually admitted to the shooting.

Only six months after Parham was released from prison for that offense, law enforcement officers apprehended him for driving a stolen car. There, officers found a stolen gun loaded with ammunition in his waistband.

Based on these events, a federal grand jury indicted Parham on one count of possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Parham moved to dismiss the indictment pursuant to New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17 (2022), arguing that § 922(g)(1) is facially, and as applied to him, unconstitutional. Following a hearing, the district court denied Parham’s motion. He then pleaded guilty to the single-count indictment.

The Probation Office prepared a presentence investigation report. It determined that Parham’s base offense level was 22 because the firearm at issue was capable of accepting a large magazine and because the Probation Office believed that Parham’s previous conviction for attempted second-degree murder cons