United States of America v. Marcus Gerrod Stokes

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-4515
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MARCUS GERROD STOKES,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (4:24-cr-00019-RCY-DEM-1)
Submitted: May 27, 2025 Decided: August 8, 2025
Before GREGORY and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiamopinion.
ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Salvatore M. Mancina,
Alexandria, Virginia, Joseph S. Camden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF
THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Erik S.
Siebert, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Daniel J. Honold, Assistant United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Catherine Black, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Stokes pleaded guilty to the unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon
under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced to a 57-month term of imprisonment, a
sentence at the low end of his Guidelines’ range. He now challenges his conviction as
unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S.
1 (2022), and his sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
As even Stokes acknowledges in briefing, his facial and as-applied challenges to §
922(g)(1)’s constitutionality are squarely foreclosed by our decisions in United States v.
Canada, 123 F.4th 159 (4th Cir. 2024), and United States v. Hunt, 123 F.4th 697 (4th Cir.
2024). See McMellon v. United States, 387 F.3d 329, 332 (4th Cir. 2004) (recognizing “the
basic principle that one panel cannot overrule a decision issued by another panel”). So we
do not disturb his conviction.
We do not disturb his sentence either. We review his sentence for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Elboghdady, 117 F.4th 224, 233–34 (4th Cir. 2024) (citing Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). As relevant here, “[a]ny sentence that is within
or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable,” and that
“presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when
measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d
295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). Stokes received a sentence at the low end of his Guidelines range
here and he fails to rebut its presumptive reasonableness. The record reflects a thorough
consideration of Stokes’ arguments for a downward variance and an individualized

-- 2 of 3 --

3
application of the § 3553(a) factors. The district court did not abuse its ample discretion in
imposing a 57-month sentence.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --