USCA4 Appeal: 23-4424 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4424

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DONALD MARTIN, JR., a/k/a Duke,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (7:21-cr-00849-DCC-1)

Submitted: August 27, 2024 Decided: August 29, 2024

Before KING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Louis H. Lang, CALLISON, TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4424 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Donald Martin, Jr., appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted

felon, in violation of

(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2018). 1 He argues that § 922(g)(1)

is unconstitutional—and his conviction therefore infirm—following New York State Rifle

& Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, which held that a firearm regulation is valid under the Second

Amendment only if it “is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm

regulation.” 2

(2022). The Government moves for summary affirmance in

light of our recent decision in United States v. Canada, in which we considered and rejected

the same argument, holding that “[§] 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional because it has a

plainly legitimate sweep and may constitutionally be applied in at least some set of

circumstances.”

(4th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up).

The Government contends that Martin’s sole argument on appeal is foreclosed by

Canada and, thus, is “manifestly unsubstantial.” See 4th Cir. R. 27(f)(1). Martin concedes

that his argument is foreclosed and “an affirmance is inevitable” but nevertheless opposes

summary affirmance. Because the only issue raised in Martin’s appeal is foreclosed by our

decision in Canada, we grant the Government’s motion for summary affirmance, and we

1 Section 924(a)(2) was amended and no longer provides the penalty for § 922(g) convictions. However, the new, increased statutory maximum sentence set forth in

(a)(8) does not apply to Martin because he committed the instant offense prior to the statute’s amendment. 2 Martin, who is represented by counsel, also seeks to file a pro se supplemental brief. Because “an appellant who is represented by counsel has no right to file pro se briefs or raise additional substantive issues in an appeal,” United States v. Cohen,

(4th Cir. 2018), we deny Martin’s motion to file a supplemental pro se brief.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4424 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/29/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3