United States v. Moore, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1335

Moore, a convicted felon with a lengthy criminal history, was arrested and a nine‑millimeter handgun was found on his person.
He was indicted for felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and for ACCA enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
Moore moved to dismiss § 922(g)(1) as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment; the district court denied and Moore entered a conditional guilty plea preserving the issue for appeal.
As part of his sentence, the district court ordered Moore to reimburse court‑appointed attorneys’ fees under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(f).
On appeal, Moore challenged both the § 922(g)(1) conviction and the attorney‑fee reimbursement order.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of the § 922(g)(1) motion to dismiss but vacated and remanded the attorney‑fee reimbursement portion for proper findings under § 3006A.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Moore	Moore argues felon disqualification violates the Second Amendment.	Moore asserts the statute should be invalidated as applied given self‑defense needs.	Constitutional both on its face and as applied to Moore.
Whether § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional	Moore contends the statute is facially invalid under the Second Amendment.	Government argues felon prohibitions are presumptively lawful under Heller.	Statute valid on its face; evidentiary specifics for as‑applied challenges remain open.
Whether the district court properly ordered reimbursement of attorneys' fees under § 3006A(f)	Moore claims the order is improper because funds must be presently available.	Government contends forward‑looking payment can be authorized under broad sentencing discretion.	District court erred by not making explicit findings that funds are available; reimbursement order vacated and remanded.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (felon in possession laws identified as presumptively lawful regulatory measures)
United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2011) (presumptively lawful regulation analysis for firearms restrictions; opened as to as‑applied challenges)
United States v. Williams, 616 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2010) (as‑applied challenges to § 922(g)(1) discussed in context of presumptively lawful measures)
United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (discussed interpretation of presumptively lawful regulations post‑Heller)
Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (U.S. 2008) (facial challenge standard: 'plainly legitimate sweep' governs)
United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc discussion on as‑applied challenges to gun restrictions)
Wilson v. United States, 597 F.3d 353 (6th Cir. 2010) (emphasized need for a thorough but case‑specific inquiry into finances before reimbursement)