United States v. Craft

24-3210-cr United States v. Craft

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 18th day of June, two thousand twenty-six.

PRESENT: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, DENNY CHIN, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. ------------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. No. 24-3210-cr CHRISTOPHER CRAFT, Defendant-Appellant. ------------------------------------------------------------------ FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: James M. Branden, Law Office of James M. Branden, Staten Island, 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 (Philip M. Halpern, Judge).

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

Christopher Craft appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Halpern, J.) convicting him after a jury trial of possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 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.

Craft principally argues that the District Court erroneously denied his motion to suppress because the firearm and ammunition were discovered as a result of an unconstitutionally prolonged traffic stop. See Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 350–51, 354 (2015). 1 On appeal from a denial of a suppression motion, we review a district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. See United States v. Gomez, 877 F.3d 76, 85 (2d Cir. 2017). Craft does not dispute that at the time of the stop the New York State troopers had probable cause to arrest him because they knew both that he had been in possession of a shotgun several days before the stop and that he had a prior felony conviction. See United States v. Hawkins, 37 F.4th 854, 859 (2d Cir. 2022). The District Court therefore properly denied Craft’s suppression motion.

See United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 235, 243–44 (2d Cir. 2012).

We have considered Craft’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

Craft also argues that his conviction is unconstitutional in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). But as Craft concedes, that argument is now foreclosed by Zherka v. Bondi, 140 F.4th 68, 74–75, 93 (2d Cir. 2025).