United States v. Mark Craig, II

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4302 Doc: 31 Filed: 07/18/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4302

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARK ALLEN CRAIG, II,

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-00022-TSK-MJA-1)

Submitted: June 27, 2024 Decided: July 18, 2024

Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Wheeling, West Virginia, Sarah E. Wagner, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4302 Doc: 31 Filed: 07/18/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Mark Allen Craig, II, 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

facially unconstitutional—and his conviction therefore 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 and rejected the same argument in United States v. Canada,

holding that “Section 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). Canada, we conclude, clearly

forecloses Craig’s challenge to the validity of his conviction.

Accordingly, we affirm Craig’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