USCA4 Appeal: 24-4538 Doc: 26 Filed: 04/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4538

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MATTHEW JOHN THOMAS NEWSOME, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:24-cr-00011-GMG-RWT-1)

Submitted: April 10, 2025 Decided: April 14, 2025

Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Kristen M. Leddy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Randolph J. Bernard, Acting United States Attorney, Kyle R. Kane, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4538 Doc: 26 Filed: 04/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Matthew John Thomas Newsome appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In the district court, Newsome moved to dismiss the indictment based on New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), arguing that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him. The district court denied the motion. Newsome subsequently entered into a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment.

On appeal, Newsome concedes that our decision in United States v. Hunt, 123 F.4th 697 (4th Cir. 2024), petition for cert. docketed, No. 24-6818 (U.S. Mar. 20, 2025), forecloses his argument. In Hunt, we held “that neither Bruen nor [United States v.] Rahimi[, 602 U.S. 680 (2024),] abrogates [our] precedent foreclosing as-applied challenges to [§] 922(g)(1),” and, further, “that [§] 922(g)(1) would pass constitutional muster even if we were unconstrained by circuit precedent.” Id. at 702. Thus, we agree that Hunt forecloses Newsome’s as-applied challenge to his § 922(g)(1) conviction.

Because the district court properly denied Newsome’s motion to dismiss the indictment, we 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