USCA4 Appeal: 24-4598 Doc: 24 Filed: 11/24/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4598

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MAHMOUD MAZEN ABU-DAMES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cr-00350-LCB-1)

Submitted: November 20, 2025 Decided: November 24, 2025

Before THACKER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: John D. Bryson, WYATT, EARLY, HARRIS & WHEELER, LLP, High Point, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall S. Galyon, Acting United States Attorney, Julie C. Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4598 Doc: 24 Filed: 11/24/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Mahmoud Mazen Abu-Dames appeals his 90-month sentence imposed for

(1) dealing in firearms without a license, in violation of

(a)(1)(A), 923(a),

924(a)(1)(D); (2) trafficking in firearms, in violation of

(a)(1), (a)(3), (b);

and (3) possessing a machinegun, in violation of

(o), 924(a)(2). On

appeal, Abu-Dames contends that the district court miscalculated his Sentencing

Guidelines range by wrongly including incomplete 3D printed frames and receivers as

firearms under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(1) (2021). In light of the

Supreme Court’s decision in Bondi v. VanDerStok,

(2025) (holding

that the Gun Control Act’s definition of firearm includes partially completed frames and

receivers that can be readily converted into a working firearm), we conclude that the district

court correctly determined that the incomplete 3D printed frames and receivers were

properly counted as firearms. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. 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

2