Court Opinion

ID: 9918461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-13 01:00:42.861062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:39.384450
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50848         Document: 00517032338             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/12/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50848
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                               January 12, 2024
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Pedro Saenz-Nolan,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:22-CR-45-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Pedro Saenz-Nolan pled guilty to possessing a firearm after a felony
   conviction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced
   him to 120 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
   Saenz-Nolan now appeals his guilty plea conviction. We AFFIRM.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50848      Document: 00517032338           Page: 2     Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                     No. 22-50848

           Saenz-Nolan raises two arguments challenging the constitutionality of
   Section 922(g)(1). He concedes not having raised these arguments below and
   that plain error review applies. United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546
   (5th Cir. 2012). Plain error requires the district court’s error be “clear or
   obvious” and affect the defendant’s substantial rights. Puckett v. United
   States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If the defendant makes such a showing, we
   may exercise our discretion to remedy the error only if it “seriously affects
   the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (quo-
   tation marks and citations omitted).
           Saenz-Nolan argues Section 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it
   exceeds the scope of Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause. This
   argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Alcantar,
   733 F.3d 143, 145–46 (5th Cir. 2013).
           Saenz-Nolan also challenges the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(1)
   under the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v.
   Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). Under the Bruen test, “when the Second Amend-
   ment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presump-
   tively protects that conduct. . . . the government must [then] demonstrate
   that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of fire-
   arm regulation.” Id. at 17. Saenz-Nolan argues that Section 922(g)(1) fails
   this test.
           This court has not determined whether Section 922(g)(1) is constitu-
   tional under Bruen. Even so, an error is not clear or obvious where an issue
   is disputed or unresolved, or where there is an absence of controlling author-
   ity. See United States v. Rodriguez-Parra, 581 F.3d 227, 230–31 (5th Cir.
   2009). Indeed, “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)
   (citation omitted). “[E]ven where an argument merely requires extending

                                           2
Case: 22-50848      Document: 00517032338           Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                     No. 22-50848

   existing precedent, the district court’s failure to do so cannot be plain error.”
   Id. (citation omitted). Accordingly, Saenz-Nolan cannot succeed in showing
   that his guilty plea conviction was a clear or obvious error. Rodriguez-Parra,
   581 F.3d at 230–31.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          3