United States v. White

24-1952-cr United States v. White

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 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 31st day of March, two thousand twenty-six.

PRESENT: DENNY CHIN, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. ------------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. No. 24-1952-cr TAMEEK WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.

------------------------------------------------------------------ FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Michael P. Robotti, Ballard Spahr LLP, New York, NY FOR APPELLEE: Ryan W. Allison, Jacob R. Fiddelman, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Jay Clayton, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Nelson S. Román, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Defendant Tameek White appeals from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Román, J.) convicting him, following his plea of guilty, of one count of unlawful possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and sentencing him principally to 66 months’ imprisonment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

White argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). But White concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Zherka v. Bondi, 140 F.4th 68 (2d Cir. 2025), in which this Court held that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional both on its face and as applied to felons convicted of nonviolent predicate crimes. He is therefore entitled to no relief on this basis. We have since applied Zherka to reject a constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1) made by a defendant who, like White, pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of ammunition. See United States v. Delgado, 149 F.4th 244, 248–49 (2d Cir. 2025).

We have considered White’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

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