No. 24-1544 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Matthew E. Madden

Defendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri ____________

Submitted: November 22, 2024 Filed: April 25, 2025 ____________ Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ GRASZ, Circuit Judge.

After a bench trial, the district court1 found Matthew Madden guilty of unlawfully possessing a firearm as an unlawful drug user in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(2). Madden sought a judgment of acquittal, arguing the

1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. government presented insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction and that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied to him. The district court disagreed, concluding the government presented sufficient evidence to convict and the statute was not unconstitutionally vague on its face or as applied to Madden in light of Madden’s conceded knowledge of being an unlawful drug user in possession of a firearm. Madden challenges the district court’s decision, which we now affirm.

After the government brought charges against Madden, he entered an Agreement for Pretrial Diversion. In the diversion agreement, the parties stipulated to a number of facts, including the following: Madden was observed throwing water bottles at officers during a protest; after officers asked to speak with Madden, he fled; while fleeing, Madden discarded a fanny pack he was carrying; and when officers searched the fanny pack and Madden’s person, they discovered a small plastic bag containing 1.23 grams of a green leafy substance, a loaded .40 caliber semi-automatic handgun, and an extended round magazine containing twenty-seven live .40 caliber rounds. Madden conceded he knew there was marijuana and a gun inside the fanny pack. Madden also admitted he habitually used marijuana since he was about five years old, smoking approximately one to two marijuana cigarettes a day. These stipulated facts were to be used against Madden in a bench trial if he breached the diversion agreement.

After the government determined that Madden violated the diversion agreement and absconded, the government reinitiated prosecution. At the bench trial, the government offered the diversion agreement, including the stipulated facts, into evidence and then rested. Madden argued he was entitled to acquittal because there was insufficient evidence and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The district court rejected both contentions and denied Madden’s motion for acquittal. Relevant to this appeal, the district court found precedent dictated § 922(g)(3) was not unconstitutionally vague on its face and Madden “failed to show § 922(g)(3) is vague as applied to his conduct because he -2- conceded that he knew he was an ‘unlawful user’ of a controlled substance in his diversion agreement.”

Madden appeals, arguing the district court erred in its denial of Madden’s motion for judgment of acquittal because § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fifth Amendment and violates the Second Amendment as applied to him. We review de novo Madden’s Fifth Amendment vagueness challenge. See United States v. KT Burgee, 988