
    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.
    No. 14-1250.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 19, 2014.
    Decided: Feb. 24, 2015.
    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.
    Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

MEW Sporting Goods, LLC (“MEW”), appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to David D. Johansen and dismissing MEWs 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, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). If the moving party sufficiently supports its motion for summary judgment, the nonmov-ing party must demonstrate “that there are genuine issues of material fact.” Emmett, 532 F.3d at 297.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum opinion and order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See MEW Sporting Goods, LLC v. Johansen, 992 F.Supp.2d 665 (N.D.W.Va. 2014). 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.  