USCA4 Appeal: 25-4141 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/04/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4141

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTWAUN O. HEAGGEANS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:24-cr-00070-REP-1)

Submitted: October 30, 2025 Decided: November 4, 2025

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Amy L. Austin, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Eric S. Siebert, United States Attorney, Ellen H. Theisen, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4141 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/04/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Antwaun O. Heaggeans pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition

by a convicted felon, in violation of

(g)(1). The district court varied

upward and sentenced Heaggeans to 63 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Heaggeans

asserts that § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied to him

following New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, in which the Supreme Court 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.”

(2022). Heaggeans

further argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court did

not provide an adequate explanation for the imposed sentence. We affirm.

Two of our recent decisions foreclose Heaggeans’s Second Amendment challenges

on appeal. In United States v. Canada, we considered and rejected a constitutional

challenge to § 922(g)(1), holding that “[s]ection 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.”

, 161 (4th Cir. 2024) (citation modified). Likewise, in

United States v. Hunt, we affirmed “the Supreme Court’s repeated instruction that

longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons . . . are presumptively

lawful.”

(4th Cir. 2024) (quoting United States v. Rahimi,

(2024)), cert denied,

(2025) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the

Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v.

Torres-Reyes,

(4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). In

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4141 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/04/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

conducting this review, we must first ensure that the sentence is procedurally reasonable,

“consider[ing] whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory

[G]uidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence,

considered the

(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected

sentence.”

(internal quotation marks omitted).

“A district court is required to provide an individualized assessment based on the

facts before the court, and to explain adequately the sentence imposed to allow for

meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.” United

States v. Lewis,

(4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “As

part of this individualized assessment, the district court must address or consider all non-

frivolous reasons presented for imposing a different sentence and explain why it has

rejected those arguments.” United States v. Fowler,

(4th Cir. 2023)

(citation modified). “Although the district court’s explanation need not be elaborate or

lengthy, when a district court’s chosen sentence varies from the Guidelines range, we must

be convinced that it gave serious consideration to the extent of the departure.” United

States v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 2025) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“Further, we do not evaluate a court’s sentencing statements in a vacuum but may discern

the court’s rationale from the context surrounding its explanation.” United States v.

Gaspar,

, 183 (4th Cir. 2024) (citation modified).

On appeal, Heaggeans focuses on the brief statement the district court made prior

to sentencing Heaggeans to argue that the court did not adequately explain its reasoning

for the chosen sentence. However, “it is . . . well established that our review of a district

3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4141 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/04/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

court’s sentencing explanation is not limited to the court’s statements at the moment it

imposes sentence.” United States v. Nance,

(4th Cir. 2020). The court

explicitly considered the § 3553(a) factors over the course of the sentencing and gave an

individualized assessment of Heaggeans by considering the specific circumstances

regarding the instant conflict with law enforcement and Heaggeans’s history of violence

towards law enforcement. The court also considered Heaggeans’s mental health and

difficult life circumstances but found that these circumstances did not mitigate the violent

nature of the offense and Heaggeans’s criminal history. The court again considered

Heaggeans’s mental health in recommending that Heaggeans receive mental health

treatment while incarcerated and on supervised release, noting that Heaggeans had the

capacity to become a good citizen. We therefore conclude that the district court adequately

explained its chosen sentence and that Heaggeans’s sentence is procedurally reasonable.

Accordingly, 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

4