Court Opinion

ID: 9910029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 19:00:41.455838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:33.406655
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10389        Document: 00517001370             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/14/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                      No. 23-10389
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                               December 14, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Todd Andre Whitfield,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:21-CR-209-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Smith, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Defendant-Appellant Todd Andre Whitfield pleaded guilty to
   possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
   922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The district court sentenced Whitfield to 100 months
   in prison—a four-month variance above the guidelines range—to be followed

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10389      Document: 00517001370           Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/14/2023

                                     No. 23-10389

   by three years of supervised release. Whitfield timely appealed, challenging
   his conviction and sentence.
          Whitfield first challenges his conviction, arguing § 922(g)(1) is
   unconstitutional under both the Commerce Clause and the Second
   Amendment. As Whitfield concedes, because he did not raise these claims
   below, we review for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129,
   135 (2009). To succeed on plain error, Whitfield has the burden of showing
   four requirements are met: (1) “there must be an error or defect . . . that has
   not been intentionally relinquished or abandoned”; (2) “the legal error must
   be clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute”; (3) “the error
   must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights”; and (4) “if the above
   three prongs are satisfied, the court of appeals has the discretion to remedy
   the error—discretion which ought to be exercised only if the error ‘seriously
   affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’”
   Id. (second alteration in original) (citing and quoting United States v.
   Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731–34, 736 (1993)).
          Whitfield first argues that Congress’s ability to legislate under the
   Commerce Clause requires more than merely that the firearm previously
   traveled at some time in interstate commerce—which is all his factual basis
   provides regarding interstate commerce—but as Whitfield concedes, this
   argument is foreclosed. See, e.g., United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242 (5th
   Cir. 1996); United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020).
          Whitfield next argues § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment
   after the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v.
   Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). In Bruen, the Supreme Court held that “the
   Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a
   handgun for self-defense outside the home,” and concluded that New York’s
   public-carry licensing regime was unconstitutional because New York issued

                                          2
Case: 23-10389      Document: 00517001370           Page: 3    Date Filed: 12/14/2023

                                     No. 23-10389

   licenses “only when an applicant demonstrate[d] a special need for self-
   defense.” Id. at 2122. The Court set forth a new test for assessing the
   constitutionality of a statute under the Second Amendment. See id. at 2125–
   26, 2129–30. “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an
   individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.
   The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is
   consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. at
   2129–30.
          We have not yet addressed the impact of Bruen on § 922(g)(1), and
   the two circuits to have done so have reached different results. Compare
   Compare Range v. Att’y Gen., 69 F.4th 96, 98, 103–04 (3d. Cir. 2023) (en
   banc), with United States v. Jackson, 69 F.4th 495, 501–02 (8th Cir. 2023),
   and United States v. Cunningham, 70 F.4th 502, 506 (8th Cir. 2023). An error
   is not clear or obvious if “this circuit’s law remains unsettled and the other
   federal circuits have reached divergent conclusions.” United States v.
   Salinas, 480 F.3d 750, 759 (5th Cir. 2007). A “lack of binding authority is
   often dispositive in the plain error context.” United States v. McGavitt, 28
   F.4th 571, 577 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting United States v. Gonzalez, 792 F.3d
   534, 538 (5th Cir. 2015)). “Even 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)
   (quoting United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 671 (5th Cir. 2009)). Because
   there is no binding precedent holding that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional and
   because it is not clear that Bruen dictates such a result, Whitfield is unable to
   demonstrate an error that is clear or obvious. See, e.g., United States v.
   EtchisonBrown, No. 22-10892, 2023 WL 7381451, at *2–3 (5th Cir. Nov. 7,
   2023) (unpublished); United States v. Racliff, No. 22-10409, 2023 WL
   5972049, at *1 (5th Cir. Sept. 14, 2023) (unpublished); United States v. Smith,
   No. 22-10795, 2023 WL 5814936, at *1 (5th Cir. Sept. 8, 2023)

                                          3
Case: 23-10389      Document: 00517001370           Page: 4    Date Filed: 12/14/2023

                                     No. 23-10389

   (unpublished); United States v. Hickcox, No. 22-50365, 2023 WL 3075054, at
   *1 (5th Cir. Apr. 25, 2023) (unpublished).
          Finally, Whitfield challenges the substantive reasonableness of his
   sentence, which he argues failed to give appropriate weight to his mental
   health conditions. Because Whitfield argued for a lesser sentence in the
   district court, he preserved this issue for appeal, and we review the
   substantive reasonableness of his sentence for an abuse of discretion. See
   Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766–67 (2020); United
   States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714, 723 (5th Cir. 2015). A non-Guidelines sentence
   unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing factors set forth in 18
   U.S.C. § 3553(a) when it “(1) does not account for a factor that should have
   received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or
   improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the
   sentencing factors.” Diehl, 775 F.3d at 724 (quoting United States v. Smith,
   440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006)). “The farther a sentence varies from the
   applicable Guidelines sentence, the more compelling the justification based
   on factors in section 3553(a) must be.” Id. (quoting Smith, 440 F.3d at 707).
   Our “review for substantive reasonableness is ‘highly deferential,’ because
   the sentencing court is in a better position to find facts and judge their import
   under the § 3553(a) factors with respect to a particular defendant.” Diehl,
   775 F.3d at 724 (quoting United States v. Hernandez, 633 F.3d 370, 375 (5th
   Cir. 2011)).
          At sentencing, the district court heard from counsel about Whitfield’s
   mental health, and the court noted Whitfield’s “background” may have
   played a part in his criminal activity. But, ultimately, the district court noted
   Whitfield’s lengthy criminal history, including several violent offenses, and
   concluded the need to deter unlawful conduct and promote respect for the
   law warranted a small upward variance. The record reflects the district court
   appropriately considered and balanced the § 3553(a) factors, and considering

                                          4
Case: 23-10389     Document: 00517001370          Page: 5   Date Filed: 12/14/2023

                                   No. 23-10389

   the deference owed to the district court, we cannot say such a small upward
   variance was substantively unreasonable in light of the district court’s
   findings. See Smith, 440 F.3d at 709–10.
         The judgement of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                        5