Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10597/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10597-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Monroe Finchum
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10597

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

CHARLES MONROE FINCHUM,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:18-CR-126-1

Before OWEN, Chief Judge, and SOUTHWICK and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Monroe Finchum appeals his guilty plea conviction for 

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) 

and 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). Relying on National Federation of Independent 

Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), he argues that § 922(g)(1) exceeds 

the scope of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and is therefore 

unconstitutional.

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 11, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-10597 Document: 00515305590 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2020
No. 19-10597

2

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance 

and an alternative request for an extension of time to file its brief. The 

Government asserts that, under circuit precedent, Finchum’s challenge to the 

constitutionality of § 922(g) is foreclosed. Summary affirmance is proper when, 

among other instances, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a 

matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of 

the case.” Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 

1969).

Finchum’s argument that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it 

exceeds the scope of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause is 

foreclosed. See United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013); 

United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. 

De Leon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 1999). Finchum concedes as much and 

raises the argument to preserve it for further review.

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief is DENIED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-10597 Document: 00515305590 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2020