United States v. Ridgeway
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 7 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-710 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:22-cr-00175-CAB-1 v. MEMORANDUM* TERRENCE DEANGELO RIDGEWAY, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2026** Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.
Terrence DeAngelo Ridgeway appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Ridgeway asserts that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied to him. This claim is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 137 F.4th 743, 761 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc) (rejecting constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1)’s categorical disarmament of felons), cert. denied, __ S.
Ct. __, 2026 WL 135692 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2026).
AFFIRMED.
2 23-710