
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marshall D. LAPIER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30401.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 1, 2013.
    Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marshall D. Lapier appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion for acquittal, see United States v. Gonzalez-Torres, 309 F.3d 594, 598 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

Lapier contends that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates his right to due process because section 922 does not require that he be provided notice that he was prohibited from possessing a firearm. As Lapier acknowledges, this court has previously rejected such arguments. See, e.g., United States v. Hancock, 231 F.3d 557, 563-65 (9th Cir.2000) (rejecting notice-based due process challenge to statute prohibiting domestic violence misde-meanants from possessing firearms); United States v. Allen, 699 F.2d 453, 458 (9th Cir.1982) (rejecting same challenge to felon-in-possession statute). Lapier’s contention that recent Supreme Court decisions undermine this precedent is unpersuasive. See Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008) (“[Njothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.... ”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     