United States of America v. Jeremiah Lee Johnston

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-4661
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEREMIAH LEE JOHNSTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:23-cr-00076-GMG-RWT-1)
Submitted: June 17, 2025 Decided: June 20, 2025
Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Nicholas J. Compton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Randolph
J. Bernard, Acting United States Attorney, Daniel L. Salem, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jeremiah Lee Johnston entered a conditional guilty plea, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(8). The district court sentenced Johnston to time served and three years of
supervised release. Johnston appeals his conviction pursuant to a provision of his plea
agreement preserving his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss
his indictment. He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion because
§ 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him in the wake of the Supreme Court’s
decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and United
States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). We affirm.
We review properly preserved constitutional claims de novo. See United States v.
Pruess, 703 F.3d 242, 245 (4th Cir. 2012). However, “a panel of this court is bound by
prior precedent from other panels” and may not overturn prior panel decisions unless there
is “contrary law from an en banc or Supreme Court decision.” Taylor v. Grubbs, 930 F.3d
611, 619 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Johnston argues that, because there is no historical tradition of disarming felons who
committed non-violent drug offenses, § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him
based on his prior convictions for a drug offense and driving under the influence. However,
binding circuit precedent squarely forecloses Johnston’s argument. In our recent decision
in United States v. Hunt, 123 F.4th 697, 702 (4th Cir. 2024), cert. denied sub nom. Hunt v.
United States, No. 24-6818, 2025 WL 1549804 (U.S. June 2, 2025), we held that “neither
Bruen nor Rahimi abrogates this Court’s precedent foreclosing as-applied challenges to

-- 2 of 3 --

3
[§] 922(g)(1)” and, further, that “[§] 922(g)(1) would pass constitutional muster even if we
were unconstrained by circuit precedent.” Id. at 702. Johnston’s as-applied challenge thus
fails under binding circuit precedent.
Accordingly, we affirm the criminal 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 of 3 --