USCA4 Appeal: 24-4111 Doc: 64 Filed: 11/12/2025 Pg: 1 of 5

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4111

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DAVONTE J. COE,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (3:23-cr-00061-RCY-1)

Argued: September 10, 2025 Decided: November 12, 2025

Before WILKINSON, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Heytens wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wilkinson and Judge Thacker joined.

ARGUED: Joseph S. Camden, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Daniel J. Honold, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Ellen V. Hubbard, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Jacqueline R. Bechara, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4111 Doc: 64 Filed: 11/12/2025 Pg: 2 of 5

TOBY HEYTENS, Circuit Judge:

Davonte J. Coe appeals the denials of motions to dismiss an indictment and to

suppress evidence. We affirm.

We start with the facts, viewed “in the light most favorable to” the party that

prevailed before the district court (here, the government). United States v. Joseph,

(4th Cir. 2025). While patrolling alone at night, Officer Dquan Walker saw

Coe sitting in the driver’s seat of a car parked just outside the entrance to a convenience

store known for “drug activity . . . inside and outside of the store.” JA 106. Coe was holding

plastic baggies that appeared to contain cocaine. There were other people on the scene,

including one in the front passenger seat of Coe’s car. Walker drew his firearm and opened

the driver’s side door. As Coe started getting out, Walker grabbed Coe and pinned him to

the car. Walker holstered his firearm and drew his taser. Coe began to struggle and threw

the baggies in front of the car. As Coe and Walker struggled, Walker saw a firearm in Coe’s

waistband.

Coe was charged with violating

(g)(1). He filed two relevant pretrial

motions: (1) to dismiss the indictment because Section 922(g)(1) violates the Second

Amendment; and (2) to suppress the firearm because Walker used constitutionally

excessive force. The district court denied those motions, and Coe entered a conditional

guilty plea.

The district court correctly denied Coe’s motion to dismiss the indictment. Coe does

not assert that the conviction that prohibits him from possessing firearms has been

“pardoned or [that] the law defining the crime of conviction [has been] found

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4111 Doc: 64 Filed: 11/12/2025 Pg: 3 of 5

unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful.” United States v. Hunt,

(4th Cir. 2024) (quotation marks removed), cert. denied,

(2024). His

Second Amendment challenge thus fails. See id.; see also United States v. Canada,

, 161–62 (4th Cir. 2024).

The district court also correctly denied Coe’s motion to suppress the firearm. The

court assumed for purposes of its decision that Walker’s conduct violated the Fourth

Amendment and declined to suppress the firearm on other grounds. But this Court “is not

limited to the district court’s reasoning” and may “affirm on any ground supported by the

record.” United States v. Brown,

(4th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks

removed). We conclude the “seizure[]” challenged here was not constitutionally

“unreasonable” and thus reach no other questions. U.S. Const. amend. IV.

The centerpiece of Coe’s argument before us is that Walker violated the Fourth

Amendment by “pointing his firearm, with no safety, with his finger on the trigger, into

[ ] Coe’s side and back as [Walker] held [Coe] against the car with his left elbow.” Oral

Arg. 6:36–:47. But the district court did not find that Walker pointed his firearm into Coe’s

side or back or that Walker had his finger on the trigger. (In fact, the latter issue was hotly

contested at the suppression hearing.) As this Court has said many times, we review a

district court’s factual findings for clear error and must view the record on appeal in the

light most favorable to the side that prevailed below. See, e.g., Joseph,

. Coe’s briefs do not assert—much less establish—that the district court committed

clear error by not finding Walker had his finger on the trigger or pointed his firearm into

Coe’s side or back, and we cannot make such factual findings in the first instance.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4111 Doc: 64 Filed: 11/12/2025 Pg: 4 of 5

Based on the findings the district court did make, we hold Walker’s conduct did not

violate the Fourth Amendment. See generally Graham v. Connor,

, 396–97

(1989). Walker was outnumbered, had probable cause to believe Coe was brazenly

committing a serious drug offense in public, and drew his firearm for less than 30 seconds.

“[J]udged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the

20/20 vision of hindsight,” we conclude it was not constitutionally unreasonable for Walker

to briefly draw his firearm under the circumstances presented here.

.

We close with one final point. At the suppression hearing, Walker testified he drew

his firearm because, “[w]henever there’s any type of crime that’s committed, regardless of

what type of crime it is, if you’re going to encounter a person[,] . . . obviously best to go

with the firearm first because you never know what that person has.” JA 119–20. To be

sure, Walker’s subjective motivations are not relevant to the Fourth Amendment question

before us. See Graham, 490 U.S. at 397–99. But Walker’s declared philosophy about when

to draw a weapon is not the law, and we denounce such views in the strongest possible

terms. As this Court has explained, “unwarranted threat[s] of deadly force” can violate the

Fourth Amendment. Nazario v. Gutierrez,

(4th Cir. 2024). And pointing

a firearm at someone “is a threat with deadly force” that is “likely to instill fear” and can

“needlessly escalate” a situation by “making it more dangerous for everyone involved.”

Although we conclude—again, based on the facts found by the district court and given the

applicable standards of appellate review—that Walker’s conduct here was not

constitutionally unreasonable, we emphasize that officers have no constitutional carte

blanche to draw firearms “[w]henever there’s any type of crime that’s committed.” JA 119.

4 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4111 Doc: 64 Filed: 11/12/2025 Pg: 5 of 5

* * *

The judgment is

AFFIRMED.

5