United States of America v. Zavien Lenoy Canada

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4519
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ZAVIEN LENOY CANADA,
Defendant – Appellant.
On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.
(S. Ct. No. 24-5391)
Argued: December 5, 2023 Decided: December 6, 2024
Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge Heytens wrote the opinion, which
Chief Judge Diaz and Judge Harris joined.
ARGUED: Cullen Oakes Macbeth, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Greenbelt, Maryland; Louis H. Lang, CALLISON, TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Kathleen Michelle Stoughton, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:
Adair F. Boroughs, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Andrew R. de Holl,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
TOBY HEYTENS, Circuit Judge:
The Supreme Court vacated our previous decision and directed us to reconsider this
case in light of United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024). It is well-settled that such
orders do not necessarily indicate that the vacated decision was incorrect or needs to be
revised. See Stephen M. Shapiro et al., Supreme Court Practice ch. 5, § 5.12.(b)
(11th ed. 2019) (describing such orders as instructing a lower court “to reconsider the entire
case in light of the intervening precedent—which may or may not compel a different
result”). We have carefully reviewed Rahimi and our previous decision in this case and
conclude they are fully consistent. In particular, Rahimi reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s
“precedents governing facial challenges,” 144 S. Ct. at 1903, rejected a facial challenge to
a statute that did not require a previous criminal conviction, id. at 1902, and reiterated that
prohibitions on the possession of firearms by “felons” are “presumptively lawful,” id.
(quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626–27 & n.26 (2008)). We
therefore re-adopt and re-issue our previous decision in this case as modified below.
* * *
A jury convicted Zavien Lenoy Canada of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which
creates what is often called the “felon-in-possession” offense. Greer v. United States,
593 U.S. 503, 506 (2021). Canada makes two arguments on appeal: (1) that
Section 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional; and (2) that the district court erred in
imposing an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. We disagree with
the first argument but agree with the second. We thus vacate the district court’s judgment
and remand for resentencing.

-- 2 of 5 --

3
First, we reject Canada’s assertion that Section 922(g)(1) is “unconstitutional, root
and branch.” United States v. Gay, 98 F.4th 843, 846 (7th Cir. 2024).* The law of the
Second Amendment is in flux, and courts (including this one) are grappling with many
difficult questions in the wake of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen,
597 U.S. 1 (2022) and United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024). But the facial
constitutionality of Section 922(g)(1) is not one of them. No federal appellate court has
held that Section 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional, and we will not be the first.
Our decision is narrow. Because Canada has expressly disclaimed any sort of as-
applied challenge, we “may”—like the Seventh Circuit in Gay—simply “assume for the
sake of argument that there is some room for as-applied challenges” to Section 922(g)(1).
Gay, 98 F.4th at 846. We also need not—and thus do not—resolve whether Section
922(g)(1)’s constitutionality turns on the definition of the “people” at step one of Bruen, a
history and tradition of disarming dangerous people considered at step two of Bruen, or the
Supreme Court’s repeated references to “longstanding” and “presumptively lawful”
prohibitions “on the possession of firearms by felons.” See, e.g., Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. at 1902;
Bruen, 597 U.S. at 9, 38 n.9; District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626–27 & n.26
(2008). We likewise do not decide whether Bruen or Rahimi sufficiently unsettled the law
* We need not answer some surprisingly intricate questions about whether Canada’s
Second Amendment claim triggers the mandate rule or how this case’s procedural history
impacts our standard of review. The mandate rule is “merely a specific application of the
law of the case doctrine,” United States v. Pileggi, 703 F.3d 675, 679 (4th Cir. 2013), and
the law of the case doctrine is not jurisdictional, see American Canoe Ass’n v. Murphy
Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 515 (4th Cir. 2003). We thus assume without deciding that
Canada’s Second Amendment claim is properly before us and that we review it de novo,
unconstrained by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b)’s plain-error standard.

-- 3 of 5 --

4
in this area to free us from our otherwise-absolute obligation to follow this Court’s post-
Heller but pre-Bruen and pre-Rahimi holdings rejecting constitutional challenges to this
same statute. See, e.g., United States v. Moore, 666 F.3d 313, 318 (4th Cir. 2012).
No matter which analytical path we choose, they all lead to the same
destination: Section 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.”
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449 (2008)
(quotation marks removed). Take people who have been convicted of a drive-by-shooting,
carjacking, armed bank robbery, or even assassinating the President of the United States.
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 36, 2119, 2113, 1751(a). Whether the proper analysis focuses on the
definition of the “people,” the history of disarming those who threaten the public safety,
the Supreme Court’s repeated assurances about “longstanding” and “presumptively
lawful” prohibitions on felons possessing firearms, or circuit precedent, the answer remains
the same: the government may constitutionally forbid people who have been found guilty
of such acts from continuing to possess firearms. That ends this facial challenge.
Second, we hold that the district court erred in sentencing Canada under the ACCA.
That statute requires at least a 15-year sentence if the defendant “has three previous
convictions . . . for a violent felony or a serious drug offense . . . committed on occasions
different from one another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Here, one of the three convictions
identified by the district court was for criminal domestic violence in violation of South
Carolina law.

-- 4 of 5 --

5
Although this Court previously held that offense constitutes a violent felony under
the ACCA, see United States v. Drummond, 925 F.3d 681, 696 (4th Cir. 2019), the parties
agree that decision has been abrogated by later ones we are bound to follow. In Borden v.
United States, 593 U.S. 420 (2021), the Supreme Court of the United States held that “a
criminal offense” may not “count as a ‘violent felony’ ” under the ACCA “if it requires
only a mens rea of recklessness.” Id. at 423 (plurality op.); see id. at 446 (Thomas, J.,
concurring in the judgment). And in response to a certified question from this Court, the
Supreme Court of South Carolina—which gets “the last word about what state law means,”
Grimmett v. Freeman, 59 F.4th 689, 693 (4th Cir. 2023)—has advised that Canada’s
offense can “be committed with general criminal intent, including a mental state of
recklessness.” United States v. Clemons, 901 S.E.2d 280, 284 (S.C. 2024). For that reason,
we conclude that Drummond has been “abrogate[d]” by a “superseding contrary decision”
and is no longer good law on this point. Gibbons v. Gibbs, 99 F.4th 211, 215 (4th Cir. 2024)
(quotation marks removed). We thus vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for
resentencing. See United States v. Hope, 28 F.4th 487, 492 (4th Cir. 2022) (vacating
sentence and remanding where the defendant was improperly sentenced under the ACCA).
* * *
The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
SO ORDERED

-- 5 of 5 --