United States of America v. Matthew John Thomas Newsome

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-4538
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW JOHN THOMAS NEWSOME,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:24-cr-00011-GMG-RWT-1)
Submitted: April 10, 2025 Decided: April 14, 2025
Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Kristen M. Leddy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Randolph
J. Bernard, Acting United States Attorney, Kyle R. Kane, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Matthew John Thomas Newsome appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In the district court, Newsome
moved to dismiss the indictment based on New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen,
597 U.S. 1 (2022), arguing that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him. The
district court denied the motion. Newsome subsequently entered into a conditional guilty
plea, preserving his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the
indictment.
On appeal, Newsome concedes that our decision in United States v. Hunt, 123 F.4th
697 (4th Cir. 2024), petition for cert. docketed, No. 24-6818 (U.S. Mar. 20, 2025),
forecloses his argument. In Hunt, we held “that neither Bruen nor [United States v.]
Rahimi[, 602 U.S. 680 (2024),] abrogates [our] precedent foreclosing as-applied challenges
to [§] 922(g)(1),” and, further, “that [§] 922(g)(1) would pass constitutional muster even if
we were unconstrained by circuit precedent.” Id. at 702. Thus, we agree that Hunt
forecloses Newsome’s as-applied challenge to his § 922(g)(1) conviction.
Because the district court properly denied Newsome’s motion to dismiss the
indictment, 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 --