Court Opinion

ID: 9402543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 00:00:58.631687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:00.167486
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-51021         Document: 00516788766             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/15/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-51021
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                  June 15, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   John Michael Garza,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:22-CR-135-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          John Michael Garza pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after
   having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
   924(a)(2), and the district court imposed a sentence of 96 months in prison
   to be followed by three years of supervised release. On appeal, Garza argues
   that § 922(g)(1), as applied to him, violates the Second Amendment,

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51021      Document: 00516788766           Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/15/2023

                                     No. 22-51021

   particularly in light of the recent decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol
   Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), and United States v. Rahimi, 61
   F.4th 443 (5th Cir. 2023), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Mar. 17, 2023) (No. 22-
   915).
           Because Garza did not make this argument in the district court, we
   review for plain error only. See United States v. Knowles, 29 F.3d 947, 950
   (5th Cir. 1994); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). An
   error is not clear or obvious where an issue is disputed or unresolved, or
   where there is an absence of controlling authority. United States v. Rodriguez-
   Parra, 581 F.3d 227, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2009). In fact, “[e]ven where the
   argument requires only extending authoritative precedent, the failure of the
   district court [to do so] cannot be plain error.” Wallace v. Mississippi, 43
   F.4th 482, 500 (5th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted). Because there is no binding precedent explicitly holding that
   § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face or as applied and because it is not
   clear that either Bruen or Rahimi dictate such a result, Garza is unable to
   demonstrate an error that is clear or obvious. See Rodriguez-Parra, 581 F.3d
   at 230-31; see also United States v. Petras, 879 F.3d 155, 164 (5th Cir. 2018).
           The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                           2