United States of America v. Leonadus Lowell Chaney, Iii

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-4310
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEONADUS LOWELL CHANEY, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:23-cr-00041-TSK-MJA-1)
Submitted: May 20, 2025 Decided: June 30, 2025
Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Hilary L. Godwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Randolph J.
Bernard, Acting United States Attorney, William Rhee, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Leonadus Chaney, III, appeals the district court’s order denying Chaney’s motion
to dismiss his indictment challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) as
applied to him. Chaney moved to dismiss his indictment for being a felon in possession of
a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), arguing that § 922(g)(1) was
unconstitutional as applied to him under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597
U.S. 1 (2022). After the district court denied Chaney’s motion, he entered a conditional
guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. The district court
sentenced Chaney to 21 months’ imprisonment, followed by 3 years’ supervised release,
and Chaney timely appealed. Finding no error, we affirm.
In United States v. Hunt, 123 F.4th 697 (4th Cir. 2024), pet. for cert. filed, No.
24-6818 (U.S. Mar. 20, 2025), this court concluded that intervening Supreme Court
authority, including Bruen, did not abrogate this court’s earlier precedent foreclosing
as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1) convictions “unless the felony conviction is pardoned
or the law defining the crime of conviction is found unconstitutional or otherwise
unlawful.” Hunt, 123 F.4th at 700 (internal quotation marks omitted). This court further
held that § 922(g)(1) passes constitutional muster under Bruen without reference to the
specific conviction establishing the defendant’s felon status. Id. at 704-08. Therefore,
Chaney’s argument is foreclosed by Hunt.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, 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

-- 3 of 3 --