United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________

No. 22-30678

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Damichael Brown, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:20-CR-242-1

______________________________

Before Stewart, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

*

A jury found Damichael Brown guilty of being a felon in possession of 

a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).1 Prior to the 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

1 The government charged Brown with (Count 1) being a felon in possession of a 

firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), (Count 2) possession of an 

unregistered machine gun, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d) and 5871, and (Count 3) 

possession of a machine gun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 924(a)(2). The 

government dismissed Count 2 and Brown proceeded to trial on Counts 1 and 3. The jury 

found Brown guilty of Count 1 but found him not guilty of Count 3. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 4, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-30678 Document: 88-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/04/2024
No. 22-30678

2

instant offense, Brown had been convicted for two prior felony convictions 

for possession of cocaine and for aggravated second-degree battery. He declined to stipulate to having prior felony convictions. The government thus 

presented documentary, testimonial, and fingerprint evidence showing 

Brown’s two prior felony convictions and that Brown could not, under federal law, legally possess a firearm. At the time of arrest, following a car and 

foot chase by police, Brown had in his possession a Glock handgun that contained 18 rounds of 9mm ammunition. The government presented evidence 

that a partial DNA profile from a swab of the gun revealed that Brown was 

the likely major contributor of that DNA. The course of the stop and arrest 

of Brown was also presented to the jury through the testimony of the officers 

and supported by video from the officers’ dash and body cameras. Following 

conviction, Brown was sentenced within the statutory range to 120 months 

imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. 

Brown appeals, but his appointed lawyer asserts that Brown presents 

no nonfrivolous issues and moves to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We notified Brown of counsel’s motion and he responded. The court then directed counsel to file supplemental briefing addressing “whether there is a nonfrivolous issue for appeal on plain error review regarding whether Brown’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. 

Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022).” Counsel filed a supplemental Anders brief, in 

which counsel averred that there is no nonfrivolous issues for appeal and that 

this court “has rejected plain-error Second Amendment challenges premised

on Bruen no less than six times this year.” The court notified Brown of counsel’s supplemental brief. Brown did not respond. The government has not 

filed any briefs in this appeal.

Upon independent review of the record and legal precedent, we conclude that Brown’s claims of error are without merit. Brown further failed to 

Case: 22-30678 Document: 88-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/04/2024
No. 22-30678

3

argue in the district court that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional. We thusreview 

only for plain error. United States v. Ramirez, 37 F.4th 233, 235 (5th Cir. 2022) 

(citation omitted); United States v. Knowles, 29 F.3d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1994). 

The recent published decision in United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571 (5th Cir. 

2023) (per curiam), squarely forecloses the question of whether a defendant 

may prevail on a Bruen challenge to § 922(g)(1) on plain error review. In other 

words, because there is no binding precedent explicitly holding that § 

922(g)(1) is unconstitutional and because it is not clear that Bruen dictates 

such a result, Brown is unable to demonstrate plain error. See, e.g., Jones, 88 

F.4th at 574. 

* * *

For the foregoing reasons, we GRANT counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw and AFFIRM Brown’s conviction.

Case: 22-30678 Document: 88-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/04/2024