Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10025/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10025-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chansavath Thipprachack
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10025

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

CHANSAVATH THIPPRACHACK, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:15-CR-196-1 

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Chansavath Thipprachack challenges the sufficiency of the factual basis 

supporting his guilty plea to the charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted 

felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He contends that the 

Supreme Court’s decision in McFadden v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2298 (2015), 

calls into question our holding in United States v. Dancy, 861 F.2d 77, 81-82

(5th Cir. 1988), that the offense does not require knowledge of a firearm’s 

 

* 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

December 28, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10025 Document: 00513814323 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2016
No. 16-10025

2 

interstate nexus. Relying on Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 

2566 (2012), Thipprachack additionally contends that § 922(g)(1) is 

unconstitutional because it exceeds the federal government’s power under the 

Commerce Clause. 

 Because McFadden does not unequivocally direct this court to overrule 

Dancy, “we are not at liberty to overrule our settled precedent.” United States 

v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013). Moreover, as Thipprachack 

concedes, his Commerce Clause argument is foreclosed by Alcantar, which 

rejected a similar challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1). Alcantar, 

733 F.3d at 145-46.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s 

motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. 

Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Its alternative motion for an 

extension of time is DENIED as unnecessary. 

 Case: 16-10025 Document: 00513814323 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2016