Ernest Vereen was convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon after a postal employee reported a gun protruding from a mailbox. Police observed Vereen retrieve the firearm and place it in his pocket. On appeal, Vereen argued that the jury should have received an innocent-transitory-possession instruction and challenged his Armed Career Criminal Act enhancement, constitutional sentencing principles, and the constitutionality of the felon-in-possession statute. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the proposed defense was unavailable on the evidence and that binding precedent foreclosed Vereen’s challenges to his prior convictions, sentencing enhancement, and the federal firearms statute. The court also rejected the argument that the statute was unconstitutionally vague or exceeded Congress’s commerce power. The opinion is notable for collecting and applying the circuit’s limits on temporary-possession defenses and for demonstrating the force of circuit precedent across multiple constitutional and sentencing arguments.