Court Opinion

ID: 9839928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 18:00:55.359605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:44.891046
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10409     Document: 00516895055         Page: 1     Date Filed: 09/14/2023

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

                                ____________                                 FILED
                                                                     September 14, 2023
                                 No. 22-10409                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                ____________                                 Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Devontae Nykel Racliff,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 3:20-CR-417-1
                  ______________________________

   Before Jones, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Devontae Nykel Racliff pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after
   a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).
   The district court sentenced him to 51 months of imprisonment and three
   years of supervised release.         Racliff argues that § 922(g)(1) is
   unconstitutional and that the district court erred in enhancing his base

          _____________________
          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
   circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-10409      Document: 00516895055            Page: 2    Date Filed: 09/14/2023

                                      No. 22-10409

   offense level based upon its conclusion that his prior conviction for Texas
   robbery constituted a crime of violence.
          Because Racliff did not challenge the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1)
   before the district court, we review only for plain error. See United States v.
   Knowles, 29 F.3d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1994). Racliff must therefore show a
   forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights.
   Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing,
   this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects
   the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.
          First, Racliff argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it
   exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. This argument is
   foreclosed. See United States v. De Leon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 1999);
   see also United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020).
          Second, Racliff asserts that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in
   New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), suggests
   that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. 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 and because it is not clear that Bruen dictates such a result,
   Racliff 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. Avila,
   No. 22-50088, 2022 WL 17832287, at *2 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2022).

                                           2
Case: 22-10409     Document: 00516895055           Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/14/2023

                                    No. 22-10409

          Lastly, Racliff argues that the district court erred by assigning an
   enhanced base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A), as his Texas
   robbery conviction did not constitute a “crime of violence” per U.S.S.G.
   § 4B1.2(a).   This court recently reaffirmed that Texas robbery is the
   equivalent of the enumerated offense of robbery under § 4B1.2 and that it is
   therefore a crime of violence for purposes of § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). United States
   v. Adair, 16 F. 4th 469, 470-71 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1215
   (2022). Thus, Racliff’s argument on this point is foreclosed.
          AFFIRMED.

                                         3