United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10849

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Taddius Tyrone Woods, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:22-CR-143-1 

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit 

Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Taddius Tyrone Woods pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm after a 

felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, he argues 

for the first time that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional and that it was error to 

accept his guilty plea to a nonexistent offense. The Government has moved 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 24, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10849 Document: 58-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2024
No. 23-10849

2

for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, an extension of time in which 

to file a brief. Woods opposes summary affirmance and requests a stay.

Because Woods failed to preserve his claims, our review is for plain 

error only. See United States v. Howard, 766 F.3d 414, 419 (5th Cir. Cir. 

2014). To prevail on plain error review, Woods must show a forfeited error 

that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. 

United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes this showing, this court 

has the discretion to correct the error but should do so only if it “seriously 

affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” 

Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted). 

Woods argues that under the prevailing interpretation of the “in or 

affecting commerce” element of § 922(g)(1), the statute is unconstitutional 

because it exceeds Congress’s authority to regulate commerce. We have

consistently upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g) as a “valid exercise of 

Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause.” United States v. 

Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013).

Relying on New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 

1 (2022), Woods contends that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment. 

We rejected another unpreserved Bruen challenge to § 922(g)(1) in United 

States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 2024 WL 1143799, 

at *1 (U.S. Mar. 18, 2024) (No. 23-6769), because any error was not clear or 

obvious. As the Government argues, that case is dispositive here.

Next, Woods maintains that, in light of his constitutional challenges, 

the district court misadvised him of the nature of his offense and the 

maximum penalty and erroneously accepted the factual basis for his guilty 

plea in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(G), (H), 

(b)(3). Given our rejection of Woods’s underlying challenges, he has not 

shown the requisite clear-or-obvious error. 

Case: 23-10849 Document: 58-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2024
No. 23-10849

3

Woods posits that a future decision may undermine or abrogate our 

decision in Jones. But we are not convinced that we should depart from our 

usual practice, which is to apply existing precedent unless and until it is 

altered. See United States v. Islas-Saucedo, 903 F.3d 512, 521 (5th Cir. 2018). 

Because Woods does not concede that every issue in this appeal is foreclosed, 

we decline to grant summary affirmance. Because the outcome is clear, 

however, further briefing is unnecessary.

Accordingly, Woods’s motion for a stay is DENIED; the 

Government’s motion for summary affirmance and alternative motion for an 

extension of time are DENIED; and the district court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-10849 Document: 58-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2024