United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-10501 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

George Henry Purdy, III, 

Defendant—Appellant, 

consolidated with 

_____________ 

No. 23-10502 

Summary Calendar 

_____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

George Henry Purdy, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

May 1, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-10501 Document: 83-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/01/2024
No. 23-10501 

c/w No. 23-10502 

2 

______________________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC Nos. 4:22-CR-302-1, 

4:16-CR-196-1 

______________________________ 

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

George Purdy, III, pleaded guilty of possessing a firearm after a felony 

conviction in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He appeals, 

raising a claim of sentencing error and urging that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional. Purdy also appeals the judgment revoking his supervised release in 

a separate matter, but, because he does not brief any challenge to the revocation or the revocation sentence, he has abandoned those issues. See Yohey v. 

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993). 

For the first time on appeal, Purdy contends that § 922(g)(1) violates 

the Second Amendment in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. 

Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). Our review is for plain error. See United States v. 

Snarr, 704 F.3d 368, 382 (5th Cir. 2013). Because it is not clear that Bruen or 

other existing precedent dictates that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional, Purdy 

cannot show plain error. See United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573–74 (5th 

Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 2024 WL 1143799 (U.S. Mar. 18, 2024) 

(No. 23-6769). 

Purdy also contends that, as interpreted by this court, § 922(g)(1) is 

unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s authority to regulate commerce. As he concedes, that argument is foreclosed. See United States v. 

Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020). 

_____________________ 

*

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

Case: 23-10501 Document: 83-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/01/2024
No. 23-10501 

c/w No. 23-10502 

3 

Finally, Purdy maintains that the district court erred in relying on 

statements in the presentence report (“PSR”) that a domestic partner told 

police he threatened her with a pistol. A sentencing court “may consider any 

information which bears sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable 

accuracy.” United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Whether this standard is met in a 

given instance is a factual finding reviewed for clear error. United States v. 

Ortega-Calderon, 814 F.3d 757, 760 (5th Cir. 2016). 

“Bald, conclusionary statements do not acquire the patina of reliability by mere inclusion in the PSR.” United States v. Elwood, 999 F.2d 814, 817-

18 (5th Cir. 1993). Here, however, the statements are part of a “detailed and 

specific” account. United States v. Parkerson, 984 F.3d 1124, 1129 (5th Cir. 

2021). The PSR indicates this account was corroborated in part by the presence of marks on the victim’s body, Purdy’s admission that a dispute occurred, and the discovery of a pistol and ammunition in his apartment. Purdy 

fails to show that consideration of the victim’s allegations, as summarized in 

the PSR, was clearly erroneous. In turn, because he did not present rebuttal 

evidence or otherwise demonstrate that the allegations were unreliable, the 

district court was entitled to accept them. See Harris, 702 F.3d at 230. 

Purdy criticizes the reasoning employed in Harris and Parkerson with 

respect to burden-shifting and information based on police investigations. 

We reject his criticisms under the rule of orderliness. See United States v. 

Traxler, 764 F.3d 486, 489 (5th Cir. 2014). 

The judgments are AFFIRMED. 

Case: 23-10501 Document: 83-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/01/2024