United States v. Mahmoud Abu-Dames

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4598 Doc: 24 Filed: 11/24/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-4598 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MAHMOUD MAZEN ABU-DAMES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cr-00350-LCB-1) Submitted: November 20, 2025 Decided: November 24, 2025 Before THACKER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: John D. Bryson, WYATT, EARLY, HARRIS & WHEELER, LLP, High Point, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall S. Galyon, Acting 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4598 Doc: 24 Filed: 11/24/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Mahmoud Mazen Abu-Dames appeals his 90-month sentence imposed for (1) dealing in firearms without a license, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1)(A), 923(a), 924(a)(1)(D); (2) trafficking in firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 933(a)(1), (a)(3), (b); and (3) possessing a machinegun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o), 924(a)(2). On appeal, Abu-Dames contends that the district court miscalculated his Sentencing Guidelines range by wrongly including incomplete 3D printed frames and receivers as firearms under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(1) (2021). In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bondi v. VanDerStok, 604 U.S. 458, 477-81 (2025) (holding that the Gun Control Act’s definition of firearm includes partially completed frames and receivers that can be readily converted into a working firearm), we conclude that the district court correctly determined that the incomplete 3D printed frames and receivers were properly counted as firearms. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. 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