Court Opinion

ID: 9353017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-10 19:00:51.362321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:07:15.577211
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10435      Document: 00516604529         Page: 1     Date Filed: 01/10/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                  No. 22-10435
                                Summary Calendar                              FILED
                                                                       January 10, 2023
                                                                         Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                  Clerk

                                                              Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Antonio Demond Baker,

                                                           Defendant—Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:21-CR-270-1

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Antonio Demond Baker pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a
   firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He appeals and, relying
   on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012),
   argues for the first time that § 922(g)(1) exceeds the scope of Congress’s

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 22-10435      Document: 00516604529            Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/10/2023

                                      No. 22-10435

   power under the Commerce Clause and is unconstitutional.                   The
   Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and an
   alternative request for an extension of time to file its brief.
          Baker correctly concedes that his arguments challenging the
   constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) are foreclosed. See United States v. Alcantar,
   733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513,
   518 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. De Leon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir.
   1999). He raises the arguments to preserve them for further review.
          Because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp.,
   Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the Government’s motion
   for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an
   extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as MOOT, and the judgment
   of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                           2