as applied to him. The district court rejected both of these arguments. Thereafter, Defendant entered an unconditional guilty plea to the § 922(g)(5) violation and the district court sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment (time served) followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Defendant now appeals, renewing his facial challenge to § 922(g)(5). The government argues in response that Defendant waived this argument by his unconditional guilty plea and, in any event, that § 922(g)(5) is constitutional. “We have not yet squarely addressed whether a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute survives a guilty plea.” United States v. Rickett, 585 Fed.Appx. 668, 671 (10th Cir.2018) (unpublished). But cf. United States v. De Vaughn, 694 F.3d 1141, 1154 (10th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, our sister circuits have split on the
holding that the alc may not rule upon a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a regulation or statute but may rule upon an asapplied challenge recognizing that categorical constitutional challenge was fundamentally similar to asapplied constitutional challenge initially raised on appeal holding in the context of an asapplied challenge that when a defendant admits guilt of a substantive crime he cannot reverse course on appeal and claim the criminal statute is unconstitutional holding that court can exercise equity jurisdiction over taxpayers challenge that property assessment system is unconstitutional facially or asapplied holding the crime of conspiracy is committed or not before the substantive crime begins