Court Opinion

ID: 9952758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 18:00:49.081828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:44:12.175778
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10796            Document: 52-1         Page: 1     Date Filed: 03/20/2024

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

                                                                                    FILED
                                    No. 23-10796                              March 20, 2024
                                  Summary Calendar                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                  ____________                                      Clerk

United States of America,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Xavier Lamarr Jones,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 2:22-CR-100-1
                   ______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
       Xavier Lamarr Jones 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. The Government has
moved for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, an extension of time in
which to file a brief. Jones opposes summary affirmance and requests a stay.

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10796         Document: 52-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/20/2024

                                   No. 23-10796

       Because Jones failed to preserve his claims, our review is for plain
error only. See United States v. Snarr, 704 F.3d 368, 382 (5th Cir. 2013). To
demonstrate plain error, a defendant must show (1) a forfeited error (2) that
is clear or obvious and (3) that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United
States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Jones waived his right to appeal his
conviction and sentence in most respects, but he argues that the waiver does
not bar the claims he has raised. Because those claims are easily resolved on
the merits, we decline to reach this issue. See United States v. Thompson, 54
F.4th 849, 851 (5th Cir. 2022).
       Jones 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. As he
concedes, this argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Perryman, 965
F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020).
       Relying on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597
U.S. 1 (2022), Jones also contends that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second
Amendment. This court rejected another unpreserved Bruen challenge to
§ 922(g)(1) in United States v. Jones (Derrick Durrell Jones), 88 F.4th 571 (5th
Cir. 2023), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Feb. 13, 2024), because any error was
not clear or obvious. As the Government argues, that case is dispositive here.
       Jones posits that future decisions may undermine or abrogate Derrick
Durrell 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
Jones 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.

                                        2
Case: 23-10796     Document: 52-1       Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/20/2024

                              No. 23-10796

      Accordingly, Jones’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 judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                    3