Court Opinion

ID: 9942428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 01:00:48.717528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:05.093091
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10109            Document: 88-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/20/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 23-10109
                                  Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                  ____________                               February 20, 2024
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Edward James Shinall,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:22-CR-274-7
                   ______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Edward James Shinall appeals his conviction of possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He contends for
the first time on appeal that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment in
light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17 (2022).
Shinall concedes that this court’s review is for plain error. To demonstrate

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10109        Document: 88-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 02/20/2024

                                  No. 23-10109

plain error, he must show a clear or obvious error that affected his substantial
rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
       The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary
affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file its brief. As
the Government contends, Shinall’s argument that the district court plainly
erred because § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional is foreclosed by United States v.
Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2023). In Jones, we decided that any error
was not clear or obvious because there was no binding precedent that held
that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional, and it was unclear that Bruen dictated
such a result. Id.
       Where “there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the
case,” summary disposition is appropriate. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,
406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the motion for summary
affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time is
DENIED AS MOOT, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                       2