Court Opinion

ID: 9963327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-25 00:00:44.06815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:46.240243
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50472            Document: 59-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/24/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 23-50472
                                  Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                  ____________                                  April 24, 2024
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Terry Dan Ratliff,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 7:23-CR-11-1
                   ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       For the first time on appeal, Terry Dan Ratliff challenges the
constitutionality of the statute of his conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He
contends that the statute violates the Second Amendment in light of New
York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and that it exceeds
Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. The Government has filed
       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 23-50472         Document: 59-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/24/2024

                                   No. 23-50472

an opposed motion for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, an
extension of time to file its brief.
         As Ratliff acknowledges, this court applies plain-error review to
constitutional challenges raised for the first time on appeal. See United States
v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 572 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, No. 23-6769 (U.S.
Mar. 18, 2024), 2024 WL 1143799. Recently, we rejected a plain-error
challenge to the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(1) under the Second
Amendment, holding that the appellant could not demonstrate a plain error
in light of the lack of binding precedent on point and the divergent decisions
reached by other circuit courts on the same issue. Id. at 573–74. Thus, the
Government’s position that Ratliff cannot demonstrate a plain error on this
basis is “clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial
question as to the outcome of the case,” meaning that summary affirmance
is appropriate. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir.
1969).
         Further,   Ratliff   acknowledges    that    his   challenge   to   the
constitutionality of Section 922(g)(1) under the Commerce Clause is
foreclosed. See United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145–46 (5th Cir.
2013); see also United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020).
Thus, summary affirmance is warranted on this issue as well.
         Given the foregoing, the Government’s motion for summary
affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of
time is DENIED as moot.

                                        2