MEW Sporting Goods, LLC v. David Johansen

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00010-IMK Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999533963].. [14-1250]

Appeal: 14-1250

Doc: 29

Filed: 02/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1250

MEW SPORTING GOODS, LLC,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID
D.
JOHANSEN,
Director
of
Industry
Operations
Louisville Field Division Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms & Explosives,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00010-IMK)

Submitted:

December 19, 2014

Decided:

February 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dan M. Peterson, DAN M. PETERSON PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for
Appellant.
William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney,
Alan G. McGonigal, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling,
West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1250

Doc: 29

Filed: 02/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
MEW Sporting Goods, LLC (“MEW”), appeals the district
court’s order granting summary judgment to David D. Johansen and
dismissing

MEW’s

petition

for

review

of

an

order

of

the

Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives, finding that MEW willfully violated the requirements
of the Federal firearms laws and denying it a license under 18
U.S.C.A. § 923 (West 2000 & Supp. 2014).

We affirm.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment
de novo, “viewing the facts and the reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
Emmett v. Johnson, 532 F.3d 291, 297 (4th Cir. 2008); see also
Anderson

v.

Liberty

Lobby,

Inc.,

477

U.S.

242,

255

(1986).

Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no
genuine

dispute

as

to

any

material

fact

and

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
56(a).
summary

the

movant

is

Fed. R. Civ. P.

If the moving party sufficiently supports its motion for
judgment,

the

nonmoving

party

must

there are genuine issues of material fact.”

demonstrate

“that

Emmett, 532 F.3d at

297.
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
memorandum

opinion

Accordingly,

we

and

affirm

order
the

and

find

district

no

court’s

reversible
order.

error.
See

MEW

Sporting Goods, LLC v. Johansen, No. 1:13-cv-00010-IMK (N.D. W.
2

Appeal: 14-1250

Doc: 29

Filed: 02/24/2015

Va. Jan. 21, 2014).
facts

and

materials

legal
before

Pg: 3 of 3

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3