United States v. Malcolm Kinloch

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 14, 2025
• Docket: 24-4449
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4449 Doc: 30 Filed: 04/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4449

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MALCOLM TYRE KINLOCH, a/k/a Marquise Deray Gadsten,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:21-cr-00612-RMG-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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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: Emily Deck Harrill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, William Cole Shannon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4449 Doc: 30 Filed: 04/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Malcolm Tyre Kinloch appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a

convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that § 922(g)(1) is

unconstitutional—and his conviction therefore infirm—following New York State Rifle &

Pistol Ass’n 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). The Government moves for summary affirmance in

light of our recent decision in United States v. Canada, in which we considered and rejected

the same argument, holding that “[§] 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional because it has a

plainly legitimate sweep and may constitutionally be applied in at least some set of

circumstances.” 103 F.4th 257, 258 (4th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up).

The Government contends that Kinloch’s sole argument on appeal is foreclosed by

Canada and, thus, is “manifestly unsubstantial.” See 4th Cir. R. 27(f)(1). Kinloch

concedes that his argument is foreclosed but nevertheless opposes summary affirmance.

Because the only issue raised in Kinloch’s appeal is foreclosed by our decision in Canada,

we grant the Government’s motion for summary affirmance, and 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