Court Opinion

ID: 9931001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 01:00:30.433344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:20.770835
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10440         Document: 00517058944             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/07/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10440
                                      ____________                                    FILED
                                                                                February 7, 2024
   United States of America,                                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Dequon Reon Stovall,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 2:22-CR-82-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Clement, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Dequon Stovall appeals his conviction for possession of ammunition
   by a convicted felon, arguing that the statute prohibiting such possession, 18
   U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), is unconstitutional. We affirm the conviction.
          In November 2022, Stovall pleaded guilty to the charge of possession
   of ammunition by a convicted felon. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (“It shall be
   unlawful for any person . . . who has been convicted in any court of[] a crime

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10440      Document: 00517058944          Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/07/2024

                                    No. 23-10440

   punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year . . . to ship or
   transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting com-
   merce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition
   which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”).
   In his plea agreement, Stovall waived his right to “appeal the conviction”
   and to “contest the conviction . . . in any collateral proceeding,” but he re-
   served his right to challenge his conviction or sentence in certain limited con-
   texts, including with respect to “the voluntariness of [his] plea of guilty or
   this waiver.” The district court accepted Stovall’s guilty plea and sentenced
   him to sixty months in prison and one year of supervised release.
          Stovall appealed. On appeal, he makes three main arguments. First,
   he argues that the appeal waiver in his plea agreement does not prevent him
   from challenging the constitutionality of his conviction. Second, he argues
   that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because, as its text has been interpreted
   by the Supreme Court, it exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce
   Clause. Third, he argues that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment
   under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol
   Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022).
          Stovall concedes that he did not preserve his constitutional challenges
   at the district court. We therefore review for plain error. United States v.
   Howard, 766 F.3d 414, 419 (5th Cir. 2014). On plain-error review, “the legal
   error must be clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute.”
   Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
          The parties dispute whether Stovall may appeal his conviction despite
   having agreed to the appeal waiver. We need not resolve this issue, however,
   because Stovall’s arguments fail on the merits. United States v. Graves, 908
   F.3d 137, 140 (5th Cir. 2018). First, as Stovall concedes, circuit precedent

                                          2
Case: 23-10440        Document: 00517058944              Page: 3       Date Filed: 02/07/2024

                                         No. 23-10440

   forecloses his Commerce Clause challenge to § 922(g)(1). See United States
   v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573 (5th Cir. 2023). 1
           Stovall’s Second Amendment challenge is likewise foreclosed. While
   “[t]his court has not yet addressed the impact of Bruen on the constitution-
   ality of § 922(g)(1) in a case in which the issue was preserved in the district
   court,” id., this court recently concluded that such a challenge cannot suc-
   ceed on plain-error review, see id. at 573–74. “Arguments that require the
   extension of existing precedent cannot meet the plain error standard.” Id. at
   574. Nor can arguments for which “this circuit’s law remains unsettled and
   the other federal circuits have reached divergent conclusions.” Id. (internal
   quotation omitted). Because Bruen’s effect on § 922(g)(1) is yet unclear, see
   id. at 573–74, Stovall cannot establish that his conviction amounts to plain
   error. We therefore affirm his conviction.

           _____________________
           1
            Stovall also advances a statutory argument that, properly interpreted, the text of
   § 922(g)(1) requires more than a minimal nexus with interstate commerce. However, he
   acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed as well. See Scarborough v. United States, 431
   U.S. 563, 575–77 (1977); United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir. 1996).

                                                3