Court Opinion

ID: 9908771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-11 19:00:36.819095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:30.161774
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-51043        Document: 00516995821             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/11/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                       No. 22-51043
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                              December 11, 2023
                                     ____________
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Paul Luna,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 1:22-CR-142-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Paul Luna appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a
   convicted felon. We affirm.
         Prior to the instant offense, Luna had been previously convicted for,
   inter alia, felony drug possession, theft, aggravated assault family violence
   with a deadly weapon, evading arrest, attempted injury to a child, and being
   a felon in possession of a firearm. When he was arrested on an outstanding

          _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51043      Document: 00516995821            Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/11/2023

                                      No. 22-51043

   warrant for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in Austin, Texas, on
   May 25, 2022, Luna had in his possession a loaded Glock pistol,
   methamphetamine, heroin, and $730 in cash. Following this arrest, Luna
   pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon, and the district court
   ultimately sentenced him to 96 months’ imprisonment.
          Luna now appeals, raising two issues: (1) 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
   unconstitutionally infringes upon his Second Amendment rights; and
   (2) § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause.
   Both arguments, as Luna concedes, are raised for the first time on appeal.
   Thus, our review is only for plain error. See, e.g., United States v. Ramirez, 37
   F.4th 233, 235 (5th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). To prevail under this
   standard, Luna must demonstrate a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and
   that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
   (2009). If he makes that showing, this court has the discretion to correct the
   error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
   judicial proceedings. Id.
          Turning to Luna’s first contention, Luna asserts that the Supreme
   Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597
   U.S. 1 (2022), renders § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional under the Second
   Amendment. But it is well established that an error cannot be clear or
   obvious when an issue is unresolved, or when there is an absence of
   controlling authority. United States v. Rodriguez-Parra, 581 F.3d 227, 231 (5th
   Cir.   2009).      Because     there   is   no    binding    precedent    holding
   § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional and because it is not clear that Bruen dictates
   that result, Luna’s challenge fails. See United States v. Sanches, 86 F.4th 680,
   687 (5th Cir. 2023); see also United States v. McGavitt, 28 F.4th 571, 577 (5th
   Cir. 2022); Rodriguez-Parra, 581 F.3d at 231.

                                           2
Case: 22-51043      Document: 00516995821          Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/11/2023

                                    No. 22-51043

          Luna next argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it
   exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. Luna correctly
   concedes this argument is foreclosed, so we reject it as meritless. See,
   e.g., United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020); United
   States v. De Leon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 1999); see also United States v.
   Smith, No. 22-10795, 2023 WL 5814936, at *2 (5th Cir. Sept. 8, 2023)
   (unpublished).
                                                                  AFFIRMED.

                                         3