Court Opinion

ID: 9926830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-25 19:00:45.676158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:03.844839
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10663         Document: 00517044360             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/25/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10663
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               January 25, 2024
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Ronald Jerome Davis, Jr.,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 3:22-CR-7-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Ronald Jerome Davis, Jr., challenges his guilty-plea conviction,
   pursuant to a written plea agreement, for possession of a firearm by a
   convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) (prohibiting felons in
   possession), 924(a)(2) (outlining penalty for knowing violation). He
   contends for the first time on appeal that the court erred in accepting his

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10663      Document: 00517044360           Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/25/2024

                                     No. 23-10663

   guilty plea because § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment and the
   Commerce Clause. He also maintains his plea agreement’s appeal-waiver
   provision should not bar consideration of his contentions. The Government
   disagrees. Because Davis’ substantive contentions fail under plain-error
   review, as provided infra, we need not consider waiver vel non. See United
   States v. Thompson, 54 F.4th 849, 851 (5th Cir. 2022) (pretermitting waiver
   issue when court could affirm on merits).
          Davis (as he concedes) did not preserve his two constitutional claims
   in district court. Accordingly, review is only for plain error. E.g., United
   States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard,
   Davis must show a forfeited plain error (clear-or-obvious error, rather than
   one subject to reasonable dispute) that affected his substantial rights. Puckett
   v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that showing, we have
   the discretion to correct the reversible plain error, but generally should do so
   only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of
   judicial proceedings”. Id. (citation omitted).
          Davis’ Second Amendment challenge is grounded in New York State
   Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17 (2022) (announcing rule for
   assessing whether statute infringes on Second Amendment). Because no
   binding precedent concludes § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment,
   our court rejects plain-error challenges to the provision under Bruen. E.g.,
   United States v. Jones, No. 23-10198, 2023 WL 8074295, at *2 (5th Cir. 21
   Nov. 2023).
          Additionally, Davis’ assertion that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional
   because it exceeds Congress’ Commerce-Clause authority is, as he concedes,
   foreclosed by precedent. See, e.g., United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143,
   145–46 (5th Cir. 2013) (concluding precedent forecloses contention that

                                          2
Case: 23-10663     Document: 00517044360          Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/25/2024

                                   No. 23-10663

   § 922(g)(1) violates Commerce Clause). He raises the issue to preserve it for
   possible further review.
          AFFIRMED.
   Judge Oldham would enforce the appeal waiver.

                                         3