UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ (2020)

Rened Martinez appeals the district court's order denying his motion for a new trial, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, in which he sought to challenge his conviction in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2194, 204 L.Ed.2d 594 (2019) (holding that, in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2018) prosecution, “the Government ․ must show that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew he had the relevant status when he possessed it”). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Martinez, No. 6:06-cr-00503-MGL-2 (D.S.C. Aug. 22, 2019). If Martinez wishes to raise a new constitutional claim, he must do so in a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A second or successive motion must be authorized by this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244. 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.