United States v. Calvin Bush

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4157 Doc: 25 Filed: 05/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-4155 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CALVIN DEVONTE BUSH, Defendant - Appellant, No. 24-4157 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CALVIN DEVONTE BUSH, a/k/a Calvin D. Bush, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:23-cr-00288-TDS-1; 1:20-cr- 00143-TDS-1) Submitted: April 24, 2025 Decided: May 14, 2025 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4157 Doc: 25 Filed: 05/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Eugene E. Lester, III, LESTER LAW, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Julie C. Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4157 Doc: 25 Filed: 05/14/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Calvin Devonte Bush challenges his conviction for possessing a firearm as convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(8) (No. 24-4155), and the revocation of his supervised release for an earlier § 922(g)(1) conviction (No. 24-4157). Bush argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him. In No. 24-4155, Bush’s argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Hunt, 123 F.4th 697, 700-04 (4th Cir. 2024), petition for cert. filed, No. 24-6818 (Mar. 20, 2025). And in No. 24-4157, Bush cannot challenge the validity of his underlying conviction in an appeal from revocation proceedings. See United States v. Sanchez, 891 F.3d 535, 538 (4th Cir. 2018) (“A supervised release revocation hearing is not a proper forum for testing the validity of an underlying sentence or conviction.”). We therefore affirm the criminal and revocation judgments. 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