Court Opinion

ID: 9946923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 19:01:00.231563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:43.069696
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10647            Document: 48-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/01/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 23-10647
                                  Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                  ____________                                  March 1, 2024
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Xavier Andrew Freeman,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 2:22-CR-121-1
                   ______________________________

Before Jolly, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Xavier Andrew Freeman appeals his conviction and 84-month
sentence for being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). He contends for the first time on appeal that (1)
§ 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) and (2) § 922(g) is

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10647         Document: 48-1        Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/01/2024

                                   No. 23-10647

unconstitutional on its face because it exceeds Congress’s authority under
the Commerce Clause. Freeman concedes that his Commerce Clause
argument is foreclosed, but he wishes to preserve it for further review. The
Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, in
the alternative, for an extension of time to file its brief.
       Freeman did not raise these issues in district court; therefore, review
is for plain error only. See United States v. Howard, 766 F.3d 414, 419 (5th
Cir. 2014). To demonstrate 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).
       Freeman challenges the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) only and does
not discuss or even mention his actual statute of conviction, § 922(g)(9).
Freeman’s counseled brief is not entitled to liberal construction. Beasley v.
McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986). Thus, as the Government
contends, Freeman has waived any challenge to his conviction because he
does not brief any relevant issues. See United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d
325, 346 (5th Cir. 2009) (“A party waives any challenge that it fails to brief
on appeal.”); see also Fed. R. App. P. 28 (listing requirements of
appellant’s brief).
       Also, as Freeman correctly concedes, prior precedent forecloses his
argument that § 922(g) violates the Commerce Clause. See United States v.
Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020); United States v. Alcantar, 733
F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013) .
       Because the Government’s position “is clearly right as a matter of law
so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,”
Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969),
summary affirmance is proper.          Accordingly, the motion for summary
affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

                                         2
Case: 23-10647    Document: 48-1       Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/01/2024

                           No. 23-10647

AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of
time is DENIED.

                                   3