23-6016 United States v. Woods

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 9th day of December, two thousand twenty-five.

PRESENT: BETH ROBINSON, SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, Circuit Judges, SIDNEY H. STEIN*, District Judge. _________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v. No. 23-6016

MICHAEL WOODS, AKA BONE, AKA BONEHEAD,

Defendant-Appellant,

*Judge Sidney H. Stein, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. ANTWAINE PARKER, AKA TWANNY,

Defendant. † _________________________________________

FOR APPELLEE: Monica Jeanette Richards, Assistant United States Attorney, for Michael DiGiacomo, United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, NY.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Sarah Kunstler, Law Office of Sarah Kunstler, Brooklyn, NY.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western

District of New York (Sinatra, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on January 27, 2022, is

AFFIRMED.

Defendant-Appellant Michael Woods pleaded guilty to being a felon in

possession of a firearm, pursuant to

(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The

district court initially sentenced Woods principally to 88 months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Woods challenges the procedural and substantive reasonableness of

† The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above.

2 his term of imprisonment and the constitutionality of

(g)(1). We

assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and

arguments on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision.

After an intervening reduction in his sentence to a term of 73 months’

imprisonment, Woods has completed the custodial term of his sentence. Both

parties therefore agree that Woods’s challenge to the term of imprisonment is

moot.

Woods’s remaining argument is that his conviction should be vacated

because § 922(g)(1) unconstitutionally burdens Woods’s rights under the Second

Amendment in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle &

Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen,

(2022). As Woods concedes, we review

for plain error because Woods raised his constitutional challenge for the first time

on appeal. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Simmons,

, 130

(2d Cir. 2025). To prevail, he must demonstrate that “(1) there is an error; (2) the

error is clear or obvious. . . ; (3) the error affected the appellant’s substantial rights

. . .; and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of

3 judicial proceedings.”

(quoting United States v. Marcus,

, 262

(2010)). 1

We previously upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) against a

constitutional challenge in United States v. Bogle,

(2d Cir. 2013). More

recently, we confirmed that our holding in Bogle remains good law after Bruen. See

Zherka v. Bondi,

(2d Cir. 2025). We explained in Zherka that “before,

during, and shortly after the Founding, legislative bodies regulated firearms by

prohibiting their possession by categories of persons perceived to be dangerous.”

. These were considered lawful regulations. See

This history persisted

after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. See

. For these

reasons, we held that Congress has “a legislative power, consistent with the

Second Amendment, to disarm categories of persons presumed to be dangerous,”

including felons like Woods.

.

Zherka is controlling and forecloses Woods’ arguments. As a result, Woods’

conviction under § 922(g)(1) was not plain error. Woods concedes this point and

raises the issue only for purposes of preservation.

* * *

1In quotations from caselaw and the parties’ briefing, this summary order omits all internal quotation marks, footnotes, and citations, and accepts all alterations, unless otherwise noted.

4 For the above reasons, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

5