United States v. Donald Martin, Jr. ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4424 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-4424
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONALD MARTIN, JR., a/k/a Duke,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Spartanburg. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (7:21-cr-00849-DCC-1)
Submitted: August 27, 2024 Decided: August 29, 2024
Before KING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Louis H. Lang, CALLISON, TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4424 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Donald Martin, Jr., appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2018). 1 He argues that § 922(g)(1)
is unconstitutional—and his conviction therefore infirm—following New York State Rifle
& Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, which 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.” 2 597 U.S. 1, 17 (2022). The Government moves for summary affirmance in
light of our recent decision in United States v. Canada, in which we considered and rejected
the same argument, holding that “[§] 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.” 103 F.4th 257, 258 (4th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up).
The Government contends that Martin’s sole argument on appeal is foreclosed by
Canada and, thus, is “manifestly unsubstantial.” See 4th Cir. R. 27(f)(1). Martin concedes
that his argument is foreclosed and “an affirmance is inevitable” but nevertheless opposes
summary affirmance. Because the only issue raised in Martin’s appeal is foreclosed by our
decision in Canada, we grant the Government’s motion for summary affirmance, and we
1
Section 924(a)(2) was amended and no longer provides the penalty for § 922(g)
convictions. However, the new, increased statutory maximum sentence set forth in
18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8) does not apply to Martin because he committed the instant offense
prior to the statute’s amendment.
2
Martin, who is represented by counsel, also seeks to file a pro se supplemental
brief. Because “an appellant who is represented by counsel has no right to file pro se briefs
or raise additional substantive issues in an appeal,” United States v. Cohen, 888 F.3d 667,
682 (4th Cir. 2018), we deny Martin’s motion to file a supplemental pro se brief.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4424 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/29/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
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
3