United States of America v. Isaiah Jaqjan Fisher

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-4527
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ISAIAH JAQJAN FISHER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:23-cr-00045-MR-WCM-1)
Submitted: November 21, 2025 Decided: January 9, 2026
Before KING, HARRIS, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: John G. Baker, Federal Public Defender, Ashley A. Askari, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Isaiah Jaqjan Fisher appeals his conviction and the 18-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to possession of a machinegun, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(o), 924(a)(2). On appeal, Fisher’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal
but questioning whether § 922(o) violates the Second Amendment facially or as applied to
Fisher.1 Although informed of his right to do so, Fisher has not filed a pro se supplemental
brief. The Government has declined to file a response brief. We affirm.
In deciding whether § 922(o) is consistent with the Second Amendment, we first
ask “whether the plain text of the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to
possess” machineguns. Bianchi v. Brown, 111 F.4th 438, 447 (4th Cir. 2024) (citation
modified), cert. denied, Snope v. Brown, 145 S. Ct. 1534 (2025). “If not, that ends the
inquiry: the Second Amendment does not apply.” United States v. Price, 111 F.4th 392,
398 (4th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 1891 (2025). “But if it does, then, second, we
must ask whether the government has justified the regulation as consistent with the
principles that underpin our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. (citation
modified).
1 Fisher’s counsel also briefly asserts that there is a nonfrivolous issue regarding
whether the district court erred in calculating Fisher’s Sentencing Guidelines range.
Although counsel asserts that Fisher does not wish to receive appellate review of this issue,
we have nonetheless reviewed the issue pursuant to Anders and conclude that it lacks merit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Here, the inquiry ends with the first step. At that step, courts ask “whether the
weapons regulated by the challenged regulation were in common use for a lawful purpose,
[such as] self-defense.” Id. at 400 (citation modified). “We know from Supreme Court
precedent that short-barreled shotguns and machineguns are not in common use for a lawful
purpose.” Id. at 403; see District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624 (2008) (noting
that it would be “startling” to suggest “that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on
machineguns . . . might be unconstitutional”). Additionally, the record reflects that the
weapon Fisher possessed qualified as a machinegun because it could shoot multiple rounds
with one function of the trigger. See 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) (defining machinegun). We
therefore conclude that § 922(o) is constitutional on its face and as applied to Fisher’s
conduct in possessing a machinegun.2
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no potentially meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district
court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Fisher, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Fisher requests that a petition be
filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move
in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
2 “It could be argued that [Fisher’s] unconditional guilty plea . . . waived any as-
applied constitutional challenges” to § 922(o). United States v. Pittman, 125 F.4th 527,
531 (4th Cir. 2025) (citation modified). Because we conclude that Fisher’s as-applied
challenge fails on its merits, even on de novo review, we need not resolve whether his
guilty plea waived that challenge. See id.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
a copy thereof was served on Fisher. 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

-- 4 of 4 --