United States v. Gregory Stump

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 21, 2024
• Docket: 22-4431
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4431 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/21/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4431

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GREGORY STUMP,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cr-00037-TSK-MJA-1)

Submitted: November 19, 2024 Decided: November 21, 2024

Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: L. Richard Walker, First Assistant Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William Ihlenfeld, United States Attorney, Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4431 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/21/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Stump appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm with an

obliterated serial number, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5842, 5861(h), 5871. He argues that

his conviction is infirm following New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, which

held that a firearm regulation is valid under the Second Amendment only if it “is consistent

with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” 597 U.S. 1, 17 (2022).

We recently considered a similar argument in United States v. Price, 111 F.4th 392

(4th Cir. 2024) (en banc). There, we rejected a Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(k), which, like 26 U.S.C. § 5681(h), prohibits the possession of a firearm with an

obliterated serial number. Id. at 396-97, 408. Price, we conclude, clearly forecloses

Stump’s challenge to the validity of his conviction.

Accordingly, we affirm Stump’s criminal 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