United States of America v. Shawn K. Bever

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-4521
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAWN K. BEVER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Charleston. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (2:22-cr-00164-1)
Submitted: July 30, 2024 Decided: March 5, 2025
Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Wesley P. Page, Federal Public Defender, Lex A. Coleman, Senior Litigator
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, OFFICE OF
THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
William S. Thompson, United States Attorney, Francesca C. Rollo, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Shawn K. Bever appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the
indictment and the criminal judgment setting forth his conviction and sentence for
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(2) (2018). He argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional—and his conviction
therefore infirm—following New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S.
1, 17 (2022) (holding that a firearm regulation is valid under the Second Amendment only
if it “is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”).
We considered and rejected the same argument in United States v. Canada, 123
F.4th 159, 161 (4th Cir. 2024) (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” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The holding in Canada forecloses
Bever’s facial challenge to § 922(g)(1). To the extent that Bever also asserts an as-applied
challenge to § 922(g)(1), we recently held “that neither Bruen nor [United States v.]
Rahimi[, 602 U.S. 680 (2024),] abrogates [our] precedent foreclosing as-applied challenges
to [§] 922(g)(1)” and, further, “that [§] 922(g)(1) would pass constitutional muster even if
we were unconstrained by circuit precedent.” United States v. Hunt, 123 F.4th 697, 702
(4th Cir. 2024). Thus, Hunt forecloses Bever’s as-applied challenge.
Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss the
indictment, and we affirm Bever’s criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 of 3 --