United States of America v. Paris Jamal Graham

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-4350
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PARIS JAMAL GRAHAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:24-cr-00326-TDS-1)
Submitted: April 28, 2026 Decided: April 30, 2026
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Benjamin David Porter, MORROW PORTER VERMITSKY & TAYLOR
PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clifton T. Barrett, United States
Attorney, Julie C. Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Paris Jamal Graham pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to
possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(8). The
district court sentenced Graham to 120 months’ imprisonment and three years of
supervised release. On appeal, Graham’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal,
but questioning the constitutionality of §922(g) following New York State Rifle & Pistol
Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). Although informed of his right to do so, Graham
has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has declined to file a response
brief. We affirm.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious grounds for appeal. The Bruen challenge raised in the Anders brief
is foreclosed by binding precedent. United States v. Hunt, 123 F.4th 697, 702-08 (4th Cir.
2024) (finding that §922(g)(1) convictions are not susceptible to facial or as-applied
challenges under the Second Amendment). Further, we conclude that Graham’s guilty plea
was knowing and voluntary and that his within-Guidelines sentence is procedurally and
substantively reasonable.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel
inform Graham, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for further review. If Graham 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served
on Graham.
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 --