Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Paris WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-30
Citations: 690 F. App'x 156
Docket Number: No. 16-11567 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Paris WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 156–156

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Paris WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-11567 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed May 30, 2017
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, Carly Elizabeth Barton, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, James Paris Williams raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013), and United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2010). In Alcantar, we rejected the argument that Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012), affect ed our prior jurisprudence rejecting challenges to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 733 F.3d at 146. In Trejo, we applied the plain error standard to a factual sufficiency claim that was raised for the first time in this court. 610 F.3d at 313.
Accordingly, the Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for extension of time is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.