United States of America v. Corey Joseph Ketcham

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-4376
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
COREY JOSEPH KETCHAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:18-cr-00370-DCN-1)
Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: February 24, 2025
Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Louis H. Lang, CALLISON, TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Emily Evans Limehouse, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina; Kathleen Michelle Stoughton, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Corey Joseph Ketcham appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(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.” 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 “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.” 123 F.4th 159, 161 (4th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Government contends that Ketcham’s sole argument on appeal is foreclosed by
Canada and, thus, is “manifestly unsubstantial.” See 4th Cir. R. 27(f)(1). Ketcham
concedes that his argument is foreclosed and “an affirmance is inevitable” but nevertheless
opposes summary affirmance. Because the only issue raised in Ketcham’s appeal is
foreclosed by our decision in Canada, we grant the Government’s motion for summary
affirmance, and we 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

-- 2 of 2 --