Court Opinion

ID: 9950466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 00:00:38.04849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:13.918184
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10791           Document: 55-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/13/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________
                                                                            United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit
                                   No. 23-10791
                                 Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                 ____________                                March 13, 2024
                                                                              Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Angel Jesus Paniagua,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 3:21-CR-165-1
                  ______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Angel Jesus Paniagua appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence
for possession of a firearm by a felon. He first argues that 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under Second Amendment in view of New
York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). As Paniagua

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10791         Document: 55-1      Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/13/2024

                                  No. 23-10791

concedes, review is for plain error because he did not raise the issue in the
district court. See United States v. Howard, 766 F.3d 414, 419 (5th Cir. 2014).
         To prevail on plain error review, Paniagua must show a clear or
obvious error that affected 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 forfeited error, which “ought to be exercised only if
the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of
judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Paniagua’s argument is foreclosed by United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571,
573–74 (5th Cir. 2023), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Feb. 13, 2024) (No. 23-
6769).
         Next, Paniagua asserts that § 922(g)(1) exceeds the power of
Congress under the Commerce Clause. Because Paniagua preserved this
argument in the district court, we review that legal question de novo and the
district court’s factual findings for clear error. United States v. Alcantar, 733
F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013). He correctly concedes that this argument is
foreclosed. See Jones, 88 F.4th at 573; United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d
424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020). Further, he contends that § 922(g)(1) should be
construed to require a closer connection to interstate commerce than alleged
or admitted in his case; however, he also concedes this argument is
foreclosed. See Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 577 (1963); see also
Perryman, 965 F.3d at 426.
         Finally, Paniagua contends the district court erred in imposing a two-
level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A) based on its finding that
he possessed at least three firearms. He acknowledges the district court did
not err in finding that he possessed the Smith and Wesson pistol and the
Glock pistol. However, he asserts there was not sufficient evidence to

                                       2
Case: 23-10791         Document: 55-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/13/2024

                                  No. 23-10791

support the district court’s finding that he possessed at least one additional
firearm.
          A commonsense, fact-specific approach supports the conclusion that
Paniagua had possession of at least one additional firearm. See United States
v. Meza, 701 F.3d 411, 419 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d
337, 349 (5th Cir. 1993). When agents executed the search warrant for
Paniagua’s residence, they found four firearms that were not in a locked
secure location, including a Smith and Wesson pistol in Paniagua’s bedroom,
a Glock pistol and the AM-15 rifle in another bedroom, and a HiPoint .40-
caliber firearm in a third bedroom. Paniagua’s brother took ownership of
some of the firearms and stated Paniagua would borrow them. Paniagua also
posted on social media photographs of himself holding the Smith and Wesson
pistol, several Glock pistols, and other different caliber firearms. Because the
district court’s finding that he possessed at least three firearms is plausible in
view of the record as a whole, the district court did not clearly err in imposing
the two-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A). See Alcantar, 733 F.3d
at 146.
          AFFIRMED.

                                        3