Case ID: f-appx_653/html/0251-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Derrick Deon BRICE, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 15-11126
    Conference Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 06/21/2016
    James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, Christopher Allen Curtis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Derrick Deon Brice raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013), United States v. Luna, 165 F.3d 316, 319 (5th Cir. 1999), and United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2010). In Alcantar, we rejected the argument that Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012), affected our prior jurisprudence rejecting challenges to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 733 F.3d at 146. Because § 922(j) is substantially similar to § 922(g), the same result is reached with respect to Brice’s challenge to it. See Luna, 165 F.3d at 319. Finally, in Trejo, we applied the plain error standard to a factual sufficiency claim that was raised for the first time in this court. 610 F.3d at 313.

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for extension of time is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be' published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.