PER CURIAM: David Brown appeals his conviction for knowingly pos- sessing a firearm as a felon. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that section 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him under the Second Amendment. Based on our recent decision in United States v. Dubois, 139 F.4th 887 (11th Cir. 2025), we affirm. We review the constitutionality of a statute de novo. United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708, 715 (11th Cir. 2010). In United States v. Dubois, 94 F.4th 1284, 1291–93 (11th Cir. 2024), we held that New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), did not abrogate our holding in United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768, 770–71 (11th Cir. 2010), that section 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment. While Brown’s appeal was pend- ing, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated our decision in Dubois, and remanded for further consideration in the light of United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024). Dubois v. United States, 145 S. Ct. 1041, 1042 (2025). On remand, we rejected the argument Brown now raises on appeal—that Bruen and Rahimi abrogated our holding in Rozier. Dubois, 139 F.4th at 893–94. And we reject Brown’s argument that Dubois and Rozier do not bar as-applied challenges to the constitutionality of section 922(g)(1). In Rozier, we held that “statutes disqualifying felons from possessing a fire- arm under any and all circumstances do not offend the Second Amendment.” Rozier, 598 F.3d at 770–72 (accepting that Rozier “possessed the handgun for self-defense” but concluding that “[t]he circumstances surrounding Rozier’s possession . . . are irrelevant” due to his felony conviction). We AFFIRM Brown’s conviction.