USCA4 Appeal: 23-4764 Doc: 22 Filed: 10/22/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4764

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RANDELL LEE PROCTOR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (2:23-cr-00074-1)

Submitted: October 3, 2025 Decided: October 22, 2025

Before QUATTLEBAUM and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Wesley P. Page, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Clint Carte, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Lisa G. Johnston, Acting United States Attorney, Amy L. McLaughlin, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4764 Doc: 22 Filed: 10/22/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

A federal grand jury indicted Randell Lee Proctor for possession of a firearm by a

person convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, in violation of

(g)(9). Proctor moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(9) violates the

Second Amendment following New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen,

(2022) (holding that firearm regulation is valid under Second Amendment only if it “is

consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”). After the district

court denied the motion, Proctor pled guilty, without a plea agreement, and the district

court sentenced him to 48 months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Proctor maintains that § 922(g)(9) is facially unconstitutional following

Bruen. He concedes, however, that his challenge to the statute is foreclosed by our recent

decision in United States v. Nutter,

(4th Cir. 2025), petition for

cert. filed, No. 25-5339 (U.S. Aug. 13, 2025), in which we held that § 922(g)(9) remains

facially constitutional following Bruen. We agree that Nutter controls and therefore affirm

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

conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2