Background
In April 2023, Berkeley County Sheriff’s deputies arrested Tracy Ranard Grant, Jr., for possessing a Glock Model 22 semi-automatic pistol and .40 caliber ammunition. Grant had previously been convicted of a felony, a fact he stipulated to before trial. Following a two-day trial in Charleston in January 2025, a jury convicted Grant of one count of possession of a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). The district court sentenced him to 41 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release in May 2025.
Grant appealed, raising three arguments: (1) the district court improperly admitted DNA expert testimony in violation of Daubert; (2) insufficient evidence supported his conviction on the firearm charge; and (3) 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction on all grounds. Regarding the Daubert challenge, the court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the DNA expert’s testimony. The prosecution sufficiently established the expert’s qualifications under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, and his testimony was reliable. The court noted that even if the admission constituted error, it would be harmless because the jury had other sufficient evidence of Grant’s guilt.
On the sufficiency-of-evidence claim, the court rejected Grant’s Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal. The prosecution presented substantial evidence that Grant possessed both the firearm and ammunition, meeting the high burden required to overturn a conviction on sufficiency grounds. The court emphasized that reversal is reserved for the rare case where the prosecution’s failure is clear—this was not such a case.
Finally, the court rejected the Second Amendment challenge, finding itself bound by United States v. Canada, 123 F.4th 159 (4th Cir. 2024). Canada established 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. The court noted that Grant himself conceded this precedent barred his constitutional claim.
Key Takeaways
- Felon-in-possession statutes remain facially constitutional under the Second Amendment post-Bruen, subject to established precedent in the Fourth Circuit.
- Expert testimony challenges under Daubert receive deferential review absent an objection at trial; trial courts have broad discretion to admit qualified expert testimony.
- Appellate reversal for insufficient evidence requires showing the prosecution’s failure is “clear”—a high bar that applies even when the evidence is circumstantial.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that federal felon-in-possession provisions withstand Second Amendment scrutiny under current Fourth Circuit precedent. Although the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), elevated Second Amendment protections, the Fourth Circuit has consistently upheld § 922(g)(1) as a longstanding, presumptively lawful restriction on firearms possession by those with criminal convictions.
The decision also illustrates the deferential standard of review for evidentiary rulings when defendants fail to object at trial and the substantial deference accorded to jury verdicts on sufficiency-of-evidence grounds, even in appellate review.