Court Opinion

ID: 9940553
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 19:00:39.799873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:00.051040
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10578         Document: 00517063465             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/14/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10578
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               February 14, 2024
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   John Michael Carrasco,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 5:22-CR-64-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Willett, Duncan, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          John Michael Carrasco pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea
   agreement, to possession of a firearm after felony conviction, in violation of
   18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, he raises multiple claims challenging his
   conviction.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10578      Document: 00517063465            Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/14/2024

                                      No. 23-10578

          As an initial matter, Carrasco argues that the appellate waiver
   provision of his plea agreement should not bar consideration of his appellate
   claims, while the Government argues that the waiver covers his
   constitutional claims and should be enforced. Because the appeal waiver
   does not implicate our jurisdiction and Carrasco’s substantive issues are
   easily resolved, we pretermit the waiver issue. See United States v. Thompson,
   54 F.4th 849, 851 (5th Cir. 2022).
          Because Carrasco did not raise these arguments in the district court,
   our review is for plain error only. See United States v. Howard, 766 F.3d 414,
   419 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Alvarado-Casas, 715 F.3d 945, 951 (5th
   Cir. 2013). To prevail on plain error review, Carrasco must show a forfeited
   error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett
   v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes this showing, we have
   the discretion to correct the error but should do so only if it “seriously affects
   the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.
   (internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted).
          As for the merits of his claims, Carrasco first argues that § 922(g)(1)
   is unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597
   U.S. 1, 17 (2022), which announced a new test for assessing whether a statute
   infringes the Second Amendment. Applying plain error review, we recently
   rejected a similar Bruen-based argument. See United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th
   571, 573-74 (5th Cir. 2023). Accordingly, Carrasco’s Second Amendment
   claim fails.
          Next, Carrasco contends that his stipulation that the firearm he
   possessed previously traveled in interstate commerce was insufficient to
   establish the requisite nexus between his conduct and commerce under §
   922(g)(1).     However, he correctly concedes that we have held that
   § 922(g)(1)’s “‘in or affecting commerce’ element can be satisfied if the

                                           2
Case: 23-10578      Document: 00517063465          Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/14/2024

                                    No. 23-10578

   firearm possessed by a convicted felon had previously traveled in interstate
   commerce.” United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242-43 (5th Cir. 1996)
   (quote at 242) (citing Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 575 (1977));
   see United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020). In the
   alternative, Carrasco argues that if the prevailing interpretation of §
   922(g)(1) is correct, then the statute exceeds Congress’s authority under the
   Commerce Clause. However, as Carrasco also acknowledges, we have
   upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1), even after the Supreme Court’s
   opinion in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1955). See, e.g., Jones, 88
   F.4th at 573; United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013);
   Rawls, 85 F.3d at 242-43. Under the rule of orderliness, we are compelled to
   following our existing precedent unless the Supreme Court “unequivocally”
   overrules it. See Jones, 88 F.4th at 573 (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted). Accordingly, Carrasco’s factual basis and Commerce Clause
   arguments lack merit.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          3